I don't think anyone has suggested this isn't the case. Personally, what I've been arguing against is that God directly acts to cause excruciating pain to those who act contrary to His wishes, or that He violently maims or kills such. I haven't said anything in regards to the subject you're bringing up here.



I haven't said anything about Christ's manifesting wrath. I've argued against the things I mentioned above.

Regarding violence depending upon the motivation of the person committing the violent acts, those who during Medieval times tortured their victims, did so with the best of intentions. They did so to save their souls, to save them from an eternity of suffering. So this would mean their acts were not violent, since their motives were good?



I quoted from the Greek to make clear what I was saying. God is kind, as the Greek puts it. You agree with this, don't you?

Is it your contention that I either believe or have said that God "will do everything that you wish" or "will never do anything which may displease you"?



Because death is the inevitable result of sin.



Death is the inevitable result of sin. Sin causes death, not God. God gives life, and sin takes it away. How? By causing one to separate oneself from God, who is the source of life. A little earlier in the DA quote this is explained:





No! I don't understand why one would prefer to attribute to God that which sin causes.

Here's the DA quote in detail:



You can see that over and over again the SOP makes the point that the death of the wicked is due to their own choice. She points out that had God "left" Satan and his followers to "reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished," and further adds that death is "the inevitable result of sin."

Sin is lethal. It is not innocuous! It kills.

Our points of view differ at this crucial point, and it impacts our entire theology from the atonement, to the judgment. If sin is innocuous, then it follows that God must kill those who practice it, since sin will not take care of this, and someone has to kill them. However, if sin causes death, then God does not have to kill them, because sin does this. What God does instead is to try to *save* people from their sin, and, in so doing, save their lives.

So God works as a Savior from sin. He works to reclaim from the power of sin, as a restorer. He works to save us from the power of the destroyer.

Now if we consider a bit the principle behind sin, it should be easy to see why it kills. The law of life for the universe is self-sacrificing love. It is to receive from the hand of God, and give to others. Proceeding in harmony with God "law of life" promotes life, happiness, health, and peace.

Sin, on the other hand, is founded on selfishness. Selfishness is not a principle which can sustain life. It leads one to do that which the SOP points out in DA 764, to separate oneself from God, who alone is the source of life. Separated from God, one must die, as God is life, and is alone the source of life.

So what God does is to try to save people from their selfishness, and bring them to Himself, so that they may live. This is what conversion is all about. This is what Christ's mission was all about. We read about this here:



The "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was the "revelation of God." For what purpose? To set men right through the revelation of God. Being brought into harmony with God saves man. Jesus' mission is reflected in His name:





Here's an analogy. People in the holocaust were killed by being gassed. The air became saturated with poison. What caused their death?

They died because they breathed. As long as they didn't breath, they would continue to live. They are at least 50% responsible for their own deaths because they breathed.

It doesn't make much sense to argue like this, does it? Isn't it clear that the poison deserves 100% of the responsibility for the death?

I asked MM the same question I'll ask you (hopefully at least one of you will answer). What is Tom saying about the NT?



Good, you got it! That's exactly what I'm saying, and have been saying, for quite some time.



Here's an example of me saying what I've been saying:



Is there something unclear about this?

I even gave an analogy which should have made my point crystal clear, which I repeat at the bottom of this post.



I quoted what Ellen White wrote. Apparently her words were misunderstood. But I meant them the way she intended. Not that Christ provided the only revelation of God (she didn't say that), but that everything that man can know of God was revealed by Christ (which she did say).



I was amazed by your statement that Moses' seeing the backside of God was a more glorious view of God's divinity than what Christ revealed (I'm quoting from memory here; don't think I'm misrepresenting your thought). It seems that you and I view Christ's mission and what He accomplished very differently.

Do you believe that it was necessary for Christ to come in order to reveal God?



The quote is not difficult to understand! Here's the analogy I gave earlier:



Does this not make sense?

If you must argue it that way, Tom, then God is fully responsible for the deaths of the sinners. He is the causative agent, which administers death to them. In this, I agree with Rosangela.

However, they might have chosen life, so it is their own fault, is it not? In other words, once again, your logic doesn't add up. You try to say it both ways, and it just does not work. It cannot be that the wicked destroy themselves and God destroys them and sin destroys them and Satan destroys them and holy angels destroy them and fire destroys them, etc. can it?

I'm tired of this merry-go-round. It's like a wild goose chase. Once we think we've nailed one thing down, the subject moves, and we must start over, and this is cyclic. Within a few pages of this thread, we will be back to square one, having resolved nothing, nor come to any agreement.

Frankly, I cannot keep up with it, nor do I have the time. I am well occupied here with other forms of ministry, and feel these endless discussions that go nowhere are a waste of our time, mine and yours too. We should be visiting our neighbors instead of chasing our own tails.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

i wouldnt blame tom for the definite "merry-go-round". each person makes a choice of whether they will participate or not. i cant see behind the scenes but i seriously doubt anyone has a gun to anyones back. blaming someone else for ones own choice leads us back to adam and eve.

what are you doing here? are you applying this to a single event, or what?


from the one who knew what she was talking about.
just little gems scattered all over that add to the picture.

nor would i blame him for the serious hi-jacking of this thread.

Then what was her point in DA 764 in arguing over and over again that their death was the result of their own choice? Why did she say that if God had "left" Satan to reap the full result of his sin that he would have perished?

If you "leave" someone to perish, then you're not the causative agent in their death, correct?

Why would she say that the inevitable result of "sin" is death? Why not say that death is the inevitable result of justice (or something similar) instead?

A difference in our views is that I believe we should be afraid of sin, and you believe (this is my perception of what you believe; please correct me if this misses the mark) that we should be afraid of what God will do to us if we sin.



GC, please read carefully DA 764, and this is what I believe. It's right there.



One thing that I believe can help it being less of a merry-go-round, as you put it, is to respond to the questions of the other party in the dialog. For example, I've asked you several times if you think it was not necessary for Christ to come in order to reveal God.

Perhaps we can move in more of a straight line if we both participate in responding to the points and questions of the other.



Teresa has tried again and again to proceed in an orderly fashion, taking the plagues one by one, and hasn't gotten any takers, as far as I can tell.

What I've done is to respond to the points and questions of others. When you raise a point, I respond. When you ask questions, I answer them. I haven't been the instigator in the posts here, but the responder. If this has led to a "merry-go-round," then would it be reasonable to assume this may have to do with those who are leading out?

If you'll read through the thread, I believe it's clear to see that I haven't provided a "moving target," but have been saying the same thing over and over again, and have been using just a few quotes over and over again to do so (for the precise reason of avoiding the thing you're talking about; few quotes, few ideas means less of a moving target, easier to follow ideas).



Why do you feel constrained to make a comment like this?

A disappointment to me has been the lack of applying Christ's life and teachings to the questions at hand. For example, the clearest statement I know of in regards to the destruction of the wicked is that given in DA 764. It's no coincidence to me that this is found in the chapter "It Is Finished," which explains what Christ accomplished by means of His death. One of the things He accomplished was to illuminate the principles in regards to the destruction of the wicked.

I don't believe it's possible to understand the judgment without understanding the cross. The two are inextricably linked together.

tom says: Teresa has tried again and again to proceed in an orderly fashion, taking the plagues one by one, and hasn't gotten any takers, as far as I can tell.

roseangela made a fair attempt.

but fear has basically taken over the thread. fear that some kind of dangerous heresy is being advocated, i guess. i dont know. there is going to be a horrible death at the second coming and at the third coming. we can avoid both by fleeing to Jesus. seems pretty simple to me.

i can tell those around me that Jesus is trying to protect us from what will happen if we come to Him.

but i never could tell people they better accept God or He would inflict horrible plagues and hell-fire on them.

With this analogy what you are proving is that God is 100% responsible for the death of sinners, since the gas corresponds to God's glory and the respiratory tract corresponds to sin.
Now, Ellen White says that "the light of the glory of God... will slay the wicked." {DA 107.4} That "the glory of God, which destroys sin, ... [will] destroy them" {Ibid.).
Sin doesn't destroy them until God's glory ceases to be restrained. So it's not sin that destroys them, but the combination between sin and the sin-consuming glory of God.
And, by the way, according to your standards this would be classified as a violent death.

About the last plagues, be they sent or permitted, the fact is that they fulfill God's purpose:

The plagues of God are coming, but it will not be sufficient for the false shepherds to be tormented with one or two of these plagues. God's hand at that time will be stretched out still in wrath and justice and will not be brought to Himself again until His purposes are fully accomplished, and the hireling priests are led to worship at the feet of the saints, and to acknowledge that God has loved them because they held fast the truth and kept God's commandments, and until all the unrighteous ones are destroyed from the earth. {EW 124.1}

I'm sorry, but this is backwards. Please re-read the analogy with the gas representing sin, and breathing representing a normal function which shouldn't cause a problem. The normal function corresponds to a created beings normal interaction with God.

Please pardon my not explaining this.