If , as you say, the inevitable of sin is death, why wouldn’t it cause them to die? “Also, which aspects of this statement do you disagree with and why?” (reposted from above)


It sounds like you’re saying comprehending the contrast between their character and God’s is what will cause the wicked to suffer and die. Is this what you think “The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked” means? If so, then it sounds like you believe information or knowledge, not sin, is what will cause the wicked to suffer and die. If so, how does this differ from saying, “The inevitable result of sin is emotional anguish ending in death”?


Please refer me to inspired sources (i.e. the Bible or the SOP). Why do you think the wicked are capable of comprehending God’s character? And, why do you think the contrast between their character and His will cause them to suffer and die?


Yes, sinners will die. But what do you think will cause the wicked to suffer? Again, death is a blessing. It is the end of suffering.


Yes, God does something to do prevent sinners from dying. I believe He veils the radiant firelight of His glorious presence. What do you think He does?


You didn’t answer my question. What is it about grace that prevents sinners from suffering and dying the moment they sin?


I believe the reason evil angels do not suffer and die when they sin is because God chooses not to destroy them. What do you believe? Do you believe sin chooses not to destroy them? If not, what do you believe?


How does God prevent them from suffering and dying every time they sin?


This answer implies the reason they do not die when they sin is because they do not comprehend the character of God. If so, what changes when they are resurrected? Why are they all of sudden able to comprehend His character in a way that causes them to suffer and die?


So, are you implying the presence of God is necessary for the wicked to suffer and die? If so, isn’t that a bit arbitrary, to use your logic?


I’m referring to His physical presence, as in close proximity (as opposed to standing afar off). Again, I believe the “the terrible light of His presence”, the radiant firelight of His glorious countenance is what will cause the wicked to suffer and die. What do you believe? Here’s what Ellen White wrote about the radiant light of God and its effect on others:

Maybe. However, at the time he rejected the law, or rebelled, he was fully convinced that he was in the wrong, and that God was righteous and His law was just. Besides, Ellen White says that "to him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will." So his sin of rebellion in no way can be described under the category of sins which Boyd describes here:



In view of Boyd's use of the word all, I can't agree with this statement.

The context of Boyd's remark is the foundation of all human sin, pointing back to the origin of that sin, which was in Eden.

MM, I started writing out a long response to #120094, but find I cannot do so. You're asking questions with embedded false assumptions that I have to disentangle, and questions like this one:



Do I believe sin chooses not to destroy them? How can you ask a question like this? Sin is not a sentient being. What are you thinking when you ask a question like this? This question doesn't make sense.

Do you have Ty Gibson's book? If you do, I'll refer you to the pages numbers I had in mind. If not, I'll type them out for you. I know you don't care for anything which is not the SOP, but you've asked me what I think, and Ty eloquently expresses what I think, better than I could, so if you're interested in what I think, I'll quote him for you. I think expressing this should pretty much take care of the rest of your questions as well.

Is his idea of the Great Controversy restricted to earth?

Tom, Ty doesn't address my questions, which are - Do you think the inevitable result of sin during judgment, as each sin is revisited, involves comprehending the contrast between our character and God's causing compounding mental and physical suffering eventually ending in death? If so, do you think the physical presence of God is necessary for it to play out this way? Also, do you think literal fire will be present at the time? If so, what effect will it have on the wicked before they die?

PS - I do not currently possess Ty's books.

Alcohol is not a sentient being, but it destroys people all by itself sometimes, no?

But then, you must realize why Mike would ask the question as he did, considering some of your statements.

Here's a few of them:


So, it is clear that you believe God will NOT cause the wicked to suffer, and that sin WILL. "Sin," in your belief, also has some ability to cause the wicked to suffer various durations of time. It seems that only a sentient being would be capable of such time-based judgments.

It appears, Tom, that you are positing here that while God is kindly looking on, sin will kill the sinners based on how errant they were. You have said that God will not set them on fire, as this is not kind. You also said sin will not set them on fire...so it appears you believe in a fire-less hell, else where does fire enter this picture at all?

Yet, the most recent statements emanating from your keyboard indicate a transition. It now appears that you are adopting the view that God's glory (light) will cause the death of the wicked. Is this true?



If this is true, how do you reconcile the duality of "sin" and "God's glory" causing their death? I am certain you do not view God's glory as being "sin."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That you would ask such a question makes it clear you either didn't read what I had posted or didn't understand it, which makes me question the judgments you have made regarding what he wrote.

For your convenience, I'm posting something he wrote regarding what he calls "The Warfare Worldview"

What is the Warfare Worldview?

The warfare worldview is based on the conviction that our world is engaged in a cosmic war between a myriad of agents, both human and angelic, that have aligned themselves with either God or Satan. We believe this worldview best reflects the response to evil depicted throughout the Bible. For example, Jesus unequivocally opposed evils such as disease, demonization, and even natural disaster (i.e. Jesus rebuked the storm) as originating in the wills of Satan, fallen angels, and sinful people, rather than of God.

This view is not ontologically dualistic, because while the Bible clearly articulates war between good and evil, it also clearly articulates God’s sovereignty. The battle that is currently raging is not everlasting, and when it ends, we are assured of God’s victory. In fact, the victory has already been won in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (Col. 2:13–14), but the demise of evil has not yet been fully realized. Christians are called to wage spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10–17) against evil through prayer, evangelism, and social action.

While most of the apostolic fathers held views that were similar to the warfare worldview, the view which has been prevalent in western church tradition since the 4th century teaches that everything that ever happens, whether good or evil, does so according to God’s will. Thus, the western church has wrestled with the “Problem of Evil” throughout most of its history—and rightly so. The warfare worldview, however, makes sense out of evil, human freedom, the power and urgency of prayer, evangelism, and social action.

Instead of resigning ourselves to our circumstances when we encounter evil, the warfare worldview encourages Christians to revolt against evil as evidence of Satan’s activity, rather than God’s mysterious will. Satan, fallen angels, and sinful people have wills of their own, and they are responsible for everything that happens which is not consistent with the character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

Questioning the Blueprint Worldview
The Bible uniformly teaches that God is the Creator of everything and the sovereign Lord of history (e.g. Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Col. 1:16–17; Deut. 10:14; Dan. 10:34–35; Ps. 135:6ff; Acts 17:24–27; Eph. 1:11). At times he exercises unilateral control over what transpires in history, miraculously intervening to alter the course of nations or of individuals, and even predestining some events long before they come to pass (e.g. Isa. 46:10–11; Acts 2:23, 4:28). Because he is omnipotent, his goal of acquiring a “bride” (the Church) and establishing an eternal kingdom free from all evil will certainly be achieved (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:25–28; Eph. 1:16–23; Col. 1:18–20; Rev. 20:10). Scripture’s majestic portrayal of God is that of a sovereign, omnipotent Creator who is confidently guiding the world toward his desired end.

Many Christians have concluded that in order for God to accomplish his goal for creation, everything that happens in world history must somehow fit into his sovereign plan. This assumption has permeated the Church throughout most of its history. The assumption is often expressed in cliches Christians are sometimes prone to recite when confronting tragedies like cancer, crippling accidents, or natural disasters. Believers sometimes attempt to console themselves and others with statements like, “God has his reasons,” “There’s a purpose for everything,” “Providence writes straight with crooked lines,” and “His ways are not our ways.” (1)

I call this understanding of God’s relationship to the world “the blueprint worldview,” for it assumes that everything somehow fits into meticulous plan and mysterious purposes of God—a divine blueprint. The view takes many different forms, but each version shares the assumption that, whether ordained or allowed, there is a specific divine reason for every occurrence in history. As traditional and popular as the blueprint worldview is, it is not without significant difficulties. For one thing, this view makes it exceedingly difficult to reconcile the evil in our world with the perfect goodness of God, especially when applied to specific instances of suffering and evil.

For example, dozens of small children were recently buried alive by a mudslide in Mexico. Can we conceive of a specific reason as to why God might have deemed it better to allow this tragedy than to prevent it? To cite another example, several years ago a young girl was abducted from her own yard in a rural town in Minnesota. Her parents now live in a perpetual nightmare wondering every day if their daughter is alive and, if she is, wondering what is being done to her. Can we theorize a possible “good” providential reason why God might have thought it better to allow this nightmare rather than prevent it? Is it possible to encourage these parents to accept this nightmare as coming from their loving Father’s hand?

For many of us, the suggestion that God has a “higher reason” for allowing children to suffocate in mud or be kidnapped is insulting to those who experience the horror as well as to the character of God. (2) Indeed, some have abandoned belief in God altogether rather than believing that God’s “higher harmony” is somehow served by horrifying suffering. Like Ivan in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, these people abandon belief in God on moral grounds. “I renounce the higher harmony altogether,” Ivan announces. “It’s not worth the tears of…one tortured child…” (3) Any design that permits innocent children to suffer for a “greater purpose” is intrinsically immoral, he argues, and we are obliged to renounce it.

Introducing the Warfare Worldview
I believe Ivan’s rage is justified, but his rejection of God unnecessary. For, despite the above mentioned motif which stresses God’s sovereignty, Scripture does not support the view that there must be a divine reason behind all events. This brings us to a second and even more fundamental problem with the blueprint worldview: It is, I contend, rooted in an imbalanced reading of the Bible.

While Scripture emphasizes God’s ultimate authority over the world, it also emphasizes that agents, whom God has created, can and do resist his will. Humans and fallen angels are able to grieve his Spirit and to some extent frustrate his purposes (e.g. Gen. 6:6; Isa. 63:10; Luke 7:30; Acts 7:51; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7). Scripture refers to this myriad of other angels and humans who refuse to submit to God’s rule as a rebel kingdom (Matt. 12:26; Col. 1:13; Rev. 11:15), and identifies the head of this rebellion as a powerful fallen angel named Satan. It is clear that God shall someday vanquish this rebel kingdom, but it is equally clear that in the meantime, he genuinely wars against it.

This prominent biblical motif expresses what I call the “warfare worldview.” The world is caught up in a spiritual war between God and Satan. Unlike the blueprint worldview, the warfare worldview does not assume that there is a specific divine reason for what Satan and other evil agents do. To the contrary, God fights these opponents precisely because their purposes are working against his purposes.

Suffering takes on a different meaning when it is considered in the context of a cosmic war as opposed to a context in which everything is part of God’s meticulous plan and mysterious higher good. In the warfare worldview we would not wonder about what specific divine reason God might have had in allowing little children to be buried alive in mud or a little girl to be kidnapped. Instead, we would view these individuals as “victims of war” and assign the blame to human or demonic beings who oppose God’s will. Following Scripture, we would of course look to God for comfort in the midst of our suffering, trust that he is working to bring good out of the evil, and find consolation in our confidence that the war will someday come to a glorious end. But we would not look to God’s purposes for the explanation of why any particular evil occurred in the first place. In the warfare worldview, this is understood to be the result of the evil intentions and activity of human and angelic agents.

As is the case with the blueprint worldview, the warfare worldview is not without difficulties. Foremost among these is the question of how this view can be reconciled with the biblical teaching that God is the all-powerful Creator of the world. Since the warfare worldview denies that God always has a specific reason for allowing evil deeds to occur, must it not deny that God is able to prevent events he wishes would not take place? We may state the dilemma this way: It seems we must either believe that God does not prevent certain events because he chooses not to or because he is unable to. The warfare worldview denies that God always chooses not to intervene, for this would require the belief that there is a specific divine purpose behind everything. Hence the warfare worldview must accept that, at least sometimes, God is unable to prevent evil. But how then can we continue to affirm that God is all-powerful?

My conviction is that, unlike the questions that the blueprint worldview raises, this question has a plausible answer. The trinitarian warfare theodicy argues that the answer lies in the nature of love. As Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, God’s essence is love (1 John 4:8, 16). God created the world for the purpose of displaying his triune love and inviting others to share in it (cf. John 17:20–25). I argue that it was not logically possible for God to have this objective without risking the possibility of war breaking out in his creation. The possibility of love among contingent creatures such as angels and humans entails the possibility of war. Six theses follow from the nature and risk of love. These theses, if accepted, render intelligible the warfare worldview of Scripture as well as the problem of evil.

I don't understand why you think Ty Gibson's books don't address these issues, especially given that you don't have them. I guess you've read them in the past, and your recollection is that they didn't address these issues. Is that it?