Mike, there are indeed people on both sides, as well as people, such as Dr. Hepenstall, who could not decide and therefore taught both. The 27 Fundamendals are specifically writen to included both views, and Mark Finley's presentations are made where a pastor can go to either view with the ones studying.

Keep studying. It took me about 2 to 3 years since I first heard about the other interpetation to it changing from sounding like heresy to "maybe Mrs. White does teach this after all" to it finally making sence to me.

Just becareful not to think that we have God pictured as mearly passive in this situation.

I'd like to piggy back on a point Kevin made which is important. There are those who believe that what happens at the end is only natural law and that God is not in any way involved in the death of the wicked. They deny that it is the glory of God that destroys the wicked. They may destroy themselves with implements of mass destruction or some other way that doesn't involve God's involvement. This is not at all what we're saying.

I've also asked you quite a number of times to please explain how to reconcile your view with the principles Ellen White so clearly lays out in DA 764. To date your only answer has been that you believe the fire is literal. But you give no reasons why it should be literal based on principles, and have not considered the principles which have been laid out in DA 764.

I'd like to thank you Mike for continuing to dialog. It may seem that we are just going around in circles, but I can assure you that, at least speaking for myself, that this is not the case. I particularly like it when you try to make a well-reasoned case or ask thoughtful questions. I find these very helpful in trying to understand issues which I believe are very important for us to think about and understand. To know God is life eternal.

I'd say it's literal fire. Both the Bible and the SOP are exceedingly plain about this.

John, what are your thoughts about DA 764? (I won't requote it since I've already quoted it many times). How do you reconcile a literal fire with what was written there?

John, if it is so "excedingly plain", then why has so many of our giants of the faith believed the other view, why does the Seventh-day Adventist Bible commentary try to reach a consensence between the two views but leaning towards the non-litteral fire view? Why is our 27 Fundamentals written to be inclusive of both views? Why did a brilliant mind such as Heppenstall find himself unable to choose between the two? While I have not found documents specifically dealing with the subject of Hell, we do find close friends and (I don't remember for sure, but I think Willie White as well) befriended and agreeded with "many of the ideas" of Lynn Wood.

You also tend to find this view among those who believe in Mrs. White as a prophet and support the Investigative Judgment. You don't find this say in Desmond Ford's theology or what has been called by some as "New Theology"

[ December 02, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Kevin H ]

My Bible tells me that there is going to be a lake of fire plain and simple. Its not a metaphor, or tricky wording to describe what it is not i.e. the Glory of God.
Seriously how is someone thrown into the Glory of God?
This is watering down what the Bible teaches. There is a verse that comes to mind but I need help in finding it. It refers to the lake of fire was created for the devil, and not for people. Anyways its something along those lines (mild case of advanced decrepitude:D ) . I will see if I can find it, but if anyone does please do post it.
God Bless,
Will

Tom, the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah are an example of the flames of the lake of fire. Yes, Sister White emphasizes that our God is a consuming fire. But I do not believe she contradicts herself or the plain wording in the Bible. Both are true.

2 Peter
2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

Mark
9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

Matthew
3:12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

This is the seventh time on this thread alone that I'm asking that the principles which Ellen G. White has laid out so clearly in DA 764 be considered. No one taking the literal fire view has even attempted to deal with these, which may speak to the weakness of the view.

For your convenience I'm reposting the paragraphs and the principles laid out.

quote:

---

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

---

Note from the DA 764 text:
1) The destruction of the wicked is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.
2) The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.
3) God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.
4) All they that hate Christ love death.
5) By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire.
6) The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.
7) At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this.
8) Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin.

Hi Will and Mike:
First of all, yes there are a lot of fire texts. But there are the other texts as well. What you tend to do is take the one group of texts at the expence of the others, and you try to picture us of taking the other texts at the expence of these.

Now, I admit it is a difficult topic. Once again even the brilliant Dr. Heppenstal was unable to decide between the two views and thus taught both of them and decided that he would have to wait until he got to heaven to find out which view was correct. We also have the other very careful scholars who know the Bible and Mrs. White much more than I do, who have come down on both sides of this issue. Lynn Wood was no lightweight when it came to knowlege of the scripture and Mrs. White. We also have others here and there coming to the conclusions. My profesors at AUC happened to come to it with out knowlege of others having reached that understanding. Daniel Dudah isolated away in the soviet union just studying the Bible and Mrs. White. Jonathan Gallager in England. Richard Nies in Southern California also found it on his own study of the Bible and Mrs. White. Graham Maxwell heard Lynn Wood give an impressive week of prayer when he was a student at PUC, but does not remember Lynn Wood touching the issue (although he said that Wood might have without him really noticing) and Graham came to his views out in a countryside cabin with only the Bible and Mrs. White's books. (Now his wife had Paul Heubeach as a teacher, and he was a student of Lynn Wood's and became convinced by Wood's teaching, and would teach it in his classes)

So once again we have going for this view the fact that it has been an acceptable interpetation through out Adventist history, and some of our giants came to this conclusion, and people have come to it independently in different parts of the world and at different times (1920s, 1940s, 1960s 1970s) it did not have one great teacher with a bunch of disciples.

And also, I know these arguments that you are bringing up here. In 1977 when I first heard of this view, all these texts came into my mind, and I was sure that the theology department of AUC was teaching heresy on this topic. But as time went by I kept seeing where Mrs. White would keep quoting these many fire texts, text after text, but then she'd summerize them with phrases such as "The Glory of Him that is Love will Consume the wicked" and how the holy city is like an ark on the sea of flames and while the glory of God is an ark of safty to the saved, it is a consuming fire to the lost, and comment after comment like this. And I also began noticing where she kept bringing about the same principles in other points.

It took from about the fall of 1977 until the fall of 1979 for me to slowly change from believing that it was heresy, and supporting the literal fire hell to finally seeing this other view as a possibility, although still not yet a believer, I was no longer a critic and was open to the possibility. Then it took from the fall of 1979 to the spring of 1981 before I became a believer in this view.

Since coming to this view, the issues in Adventistm have jelled, the law, the investigative judgment, the state of the dead, the issues of the great controversy have all been unified by this understanding of hell.

What Graham Maxwell does is simply compiled as many Biblical and Ellen White statements about hell as he can find, compiles them without commentary, and these with copies of Mrs. White's Article "God Made Manifest in Christ" simply hands them out and asks people to read them and see what conclusion they come to from their own reading of her words.

May I invite you to read "Why was Sin Permitted" in Patriarchs and Prophets, "It is Finished" in Desire of Ages, "Why was Sin Permitted" in Great Controversy, the books "Confrontation" and "The Story of Redemption" and the many articles Mrs. White wrote about the issues of the Great Controversy.

Tom, I have replied to your view several times. I believe both play a part.