You're welcome.



No, I'm not saying this.



This says the lost "place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire." So I would not put the onus on God, but on the wicked. Indeed, this is the whole point of DA 764, which she says 9 times in a row(!) that their destruction is not due to something God does to them, but is a result of their own choice.

The lost do something to themselves which causes them not to be able to stand love. Their own actions is the problem, not love. I would be very hesitant to put this in any way that did not make this point clear.

Regarding suffering pain and agony, I can think of nothing worse than being burned alive for days. I think this would be on the bottom of anyone's choice of how to die. Ty said that the flame would be more terrible. He was speaking of the impact upon the conscience. Emotional pain is different than physical pain. The pain he is talking about is akin to the pain of losing a loved one. If you lose a pain or a child, you'd be willing suffer anything rather than suffer that pain (not so much because of the pain, but because you want your loved one back). This is what I believe Ty was getting at when he talked about the flame burning being a more terrible flame than a literal flame burning.



Because God didn't allow it to happen.



It's being the judgment is the difference.



I answered this.



Literal fire purifies the earth, which includes the dead.

And more life, since the ones with less sin will die sooner. Agreed?

So, are the wicked suffering that now? Is Satan going through that mental anguish now, since he is unrepentant, and God is as omnipresent now as He has ever been.

(Post by Tom from Atonement Models)



What? Sin=light of the glory of God. No, that's not right.

Light = revelation, or truth. Glory = character. The glory of God is His character. The wicked, because of the damage they have done to their own character, are unable to bear the revelation of God's love, which is His character. The meaning of the sentence in question is made clear by the sentences immediately following:



Let's review the quote: "The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked."

Let's look at one of your new quotes: "The glory of Him who is love will destroy them."



God's glory is His character, which is love. If you wish to construe things as a revelation of God's love destroys the wicked, that's fine by me, but it should be clear that the fault is in the sin which has ruined the character of those who have rejected in God's love. There's no reason why the revelation of God's wonderful love should result in death. That's rather enigmatic. It speaks to the sinfulness of sin.



What's the problem here? The love of God? Or the life of rebellion that ruins the character?



The "red above" was speaking of the revelation of God's character. So the idea is that for someone to die, a revelation of God's character is necessary, in addition to the wicked's having ruined their character by sin. Is this correct?

What's the motivation for wishing to lay the responsibility on God for the death of the wicked as opposed to sin? I'm not understanding this. What's the advantage of looking at things this way?

Sin is lethal. We need to be saved from it.

OK, I think we're starting to agree. But to make sure, let's review the quote: "The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked." In that sentence, did the SOP say that "sin" will "slay the wicked"? Or is it God's glory that will "slay the wicked"?

The problem is sin. I have not seen anyone here teach otherwise.

The difference is that you teach that the solution - the complete eradication of sin - is also sin, while there are those of us who say that it is God.


Consider the sinner who has irrevocably chosen selfishness over God's character. If he were to live forever in a place where God rules, where God's love is the law, where God's holiness is the standard, would he consider that torture? Yes, he would.

Would he prefer to die instead? Yes, he would.

And so, in perfect love and infinite mercy, at unspeakable pain to Himself, God will give them death. The destruction of the sinner simultaneously speaks of the sinfulness of sin and of the love of God.

Hence, God's glory revealed will destroy sinners. That's sounding very familiar by now.

That is correct, as evidenced by the fact that Satan knew God's character, chose to sin, but was not destroyed. Six thousand years later, he still knows God's character, still sins, and he's still not destroyed. In spite of all that sin running through the veins of the master sinner, he's still not dead.


I think it's a difference of hermeneutics. I just want to look at the evidence, and try to figure out a system that makes sense of them all. Your way, if I understand you correctly, is to have a system that makes sense to you, then make the evidence fit your paradigm. Therefore, you are confused about my "motivation" for my beliefs, as if I am trying to steer it one way or the other.

Remember your problem debugging your code because you kept seeing the number that you were expecting to see, instead of the wrong number that was actually there? I was a QA Engineer for a while; I look for what's actually there, and deal with the ramifications later. The "motivation" is to come up with a paradigm that explains all phenomena, not just the ones I like.

". . . His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them." Why is His presence necessary? How will His glory destroy them?


How did He prevent it? How does He allow it?


Why?


I don't recall your answer. Please restate it here.


The quotes doesn't portray it that way. Instead, literal fire engulfs the planet while the wicked are alive. What effect does it have on the wicked before they die?

Arnold, do you envision God's presence causing the wicked to suffer and to die according to their sinfulness? If so, what dynamics will be at work?

Or, do you think comprehending the contrast between their character and God's will cause them to suffer and to die? If so, what dynamics will be at work?

Me too.



??? That doesn't make any sense.



I don't see any advantage in looking at things the way you want to. I guess it's like looking at a half-empty/half-full glass. You choose to look at things in a way that makes God responsible for the destruction of sinners, even though there is tons of evidence that sinners are responsible for their own destruction. I'm not seeing the advantage of the "half-empty" way (or "half-full" if you prefer).

It seems to me that God is entirely innocent of everything having to do with sin, including its existence and demise. I don't belie God every strayed or will stray from the principles of His kingdom, such as not using force.



I'm sure you try to do this, but it's hard to believe you're perfect, and have never missed certain things because of results you were expecting to see. If not, our company has an opening for a QA/Risk Management Department head (this is true).



Do you think God doesn't care at all what we think He is like? This is what I'm understand you to be saying here. It doesn't matter what we think about God's character, if it's immoral, or cruel, or whatever.

My heart melts at the wonderful beauty revealed by Jesus Christ is regards to God's character. IIRC, the SOP tells us that it is sin to consider the cross and not be moved. Our hearts are so hard, they needed to be melted by God's love. Otherwise we won't care about others, and continue to treat them poorly, without even realizing what we're doing. We need the love of Christ revealed to us, and manifest in our hearts. This happens as God's love is revealed through the beauties of His character, and we are moved to respond to that love.