a:You are wrong there. There are only two options: 1) The angels learn something new, 2) the angels learn nothing new. Since you denied that the angels learn something new, it must necessarily be true that the angels learn nothing new.

But now, you seem to be denying that the angels learn nothing new.

Did I misunderstand your initial answer?

Are you saying that the angels learn some truth in the Judgment that they never knew before?

And we should not lose sight of the fact that Satan was the covering cherub.

Again, there are only two options: the angels either do or do not learn something new. There is no middle ground.

BTW, I find it somewhat amusing that you are saying that you did not intend your statement to be as far-reaching as I took it, while I believe (and I think GC has expressed this as well), that you do exactly that with certain statements in the SOP, which leads to our disagreements regarding atonement, judgment, Christ's revelation, etc. I find it ironic.

I said I made no statement in regards to angels. Therefore you can conclude nothing whatsoever from my statement in regards to angels.

So, here's a rundown of your recent statements, Tom, and perhaps you can correct my understanding here.

1. T:in the judgment there's a revelation of truth the wicked haven't seen before.
2. A:This is a revelation of truth that Jesus did not already reveal in His earthly life?
3. T:No, it's a revelation the wicked hadn't seen before.
4. A:It is truth that none of the wicked had ever seen before? Including Satan, the former covering cherub?
5. T:What I said wasn't that far reaching a statement. I was speaking of human beings.
6. A:So, the angels will see nothing new. OK, I'll chew on that.
7. T:This conclusion is completely unfair and unreasonable, as should be easily seen by anyone. I said I made no statement in regards to angels. Therefore you can conclude nothing whatsoever from my statement in regards to angels.

Tom, if I am understanding correctly, the "anyone" you referred to should understand the following to be true, relative to the above conversation:

A. In step 1 above, Tom says that there will be new truth revealed in the judgment which has never yet been seen.
B. In step 2, Arnold understands this to be truth not revealed by Jesus.
C. In step 3, Tom corrects Arnold to say Jesus revealed this truth, but the wicked had not known or seen it.
D. In step 4, Arnold understand "the wicked" to include the fallen angels.
E. In step 5, Tom corrects Arnold to say that this does not include the fallen angels (in other words, the angels have seen/known this truth, but only the human-lost have not).
F. In step 6, Arnold confirms this understanding that the angels will not see truths they never before knew.
G. Last of all, Tom tells Arnold that anyone should be able to see his conclusion is false, and that he was not speaking of fallen angels.

I guess I'm not an "anyone." I see Tom as saying two opposite things at the same time. Were you not speaking of angels in #5? If not, why bother to correct Arnold there? Perhaps you have a logical explanation for this marvelous dichotomy?

Let's go back to your original statement for a moment, to illustrate this more clearly:

T:in the judgment there's a revelation of truth the wicked haven't seen before.

The following conclusions are possible from this statement:
1. "The wicked" includes all who are lost, and therefore all the wicked will see new truth.
2. "The wicked" includes only those of mankind, since the angels will not see new truth.
3. "The judgment" obviously applies to mankind, and not to angels, since angels will not see new truth.

The following sub-concepts are possible from these conclusions:

1. The "revelation" of truth is an active part of the judgment; in which case it must necessarily be applied to all who are judged.
2. The "revelation" of truth is a side-issue, not related to the judgment, as it will be only for a portion of those damned.

Which one is it?

I still say that hell will be essentially the same for humans as for angels. Duration will be the most essential difference, as the angels will be recompensed for 6000 years of sin, as opposed to men who have lived less than 1000 at most.

In the judgment there's a revelation of truth the wicked haven't seen before.

In regards to the SOP, we do seem to approach things differently. Instead of looking for general principles which would be applicable in general, because they are founded upon God's character, you seem to prefer an approach which simply considers what the text says happened, with little or no regard as to whether the interpretation under consideration makes sense from a character standpoint.

For example, consider the idea that God sets people on fire to be burned alive for days at a time to make them suffer. It seems to me that one should be able to immediately reject this as a possibility without a second thought simply on the basis of the revelation of God's character throughout inspiration. That this idea is not only considered, but defended, in spite of all we know about God as revealed in inspiration, especially through Jesus Christ, is difficult for me to comprehend.

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. (Matthew 18:8-9)

Jesus did not sin. He was tempted to sin while He was here in the flesh, but He chose not to sin. Theoretically He could have sinned if He had wanted to, but not once did He want to. Do you agree?

Reject these inspired words if you wish, I cannot. Jesus said in so many words that there will be people thrown into the fire.

But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty.

An immediate question would be, should we insert our own private interpretation as to who is going to do it?

But what about these inspired words? Should we reject them?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matthew 25:40-41)

When you say a different type of suffering, what do you mean? You mean different than anything they've experienced before? I would say different, in this way, but different in terms of circumstances. So the reasons are the same (the things I listed before), but in the judgment there's a revelation of truth the wicked haven't seen before.

Do you think Nadab and Abihu spontaneously combusted? Or, do you think they died of means other than fire or the radiant light of God? If so, what do you think caused them to die? Why did their brain, blood, and breath functions cease?

Also, what caused the following sinners to die:

Numbers
16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

2 Kings
1:10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I [be] a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

T: I don't have anything to add to the discussion we've had in the past.

T: In the judgment there's a revelation of truth the wicked haven't seen before.

A: This is a revelation of truth that Jesus did not already reveal in His earthly life?

T: No, it's a revelation the wicked hadn't seen before.

T:When you say a different type of suffering, what do you mean? You mean different than anything they've experienced before? I would say different, in this way, but different in terms of circumstances. So the reasons are the same (the things I listed before), but in the judgment there's a revelation of truth the wicked haven't seen before.

M:So, truth (information, knowledge) causes them to suffer in judgment. But what causes sinners to suffer now?

And, does it serve to inspire, motivate them to cease sinning now?

Will it serve the same purpose in judgment? If not, why not?

What kind of truth (information, knowledge) will they learn (acquire, understand, comprehend) in judgment?

Did they know it before they died? If not, why not?

Why is comprehending truth necessary to suffer in judgment?

Isn’t sin sufficient to cause suffering and death in judgment?

If memory serves me right, you believe whenever the Bible says "fire" from God or heaven resulted in sinners being burned alive - 1) they were burned alive instantly,

2) it was not equivalent to torture,

3) it was fire that naturally exists in the air,

4) God works unnaturally to prevent it from burning sinners alive,

and 5)God simply ceased preventing it and allowed it to burn selected sinners alive.