Tom, Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered our sin and second death. So, how can you say the wicked will die like Jesus did? He laid down His own life and took it up again. Do you think the wicked will survive the second death like Jesus did?

Also, why do you think Moses survived seeing God's back but would have perished had he seen His face?

The above quote contains error. There is no statement in all of the Bible or Ellen White to support that Cain saw God's face.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

1. The radiant firelight of God's person and presence consumes the sin in sinners. It causes resurrected sinners to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. Then they die. I'm not sure what effect or impact the literal fire will have on them.
2. Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered our sin and second death. Satan's experience is that of the wicked.
3. The wicked hate the character of God. They find it repulsive. As they are being forced to revisit their sins during judgment they regret missing out on heaven for sinful reasons. They are sin-hardened and are, therefore, incapable of feeling shame and guilt like Jesus did on the cross. Their expereicne will that of Satan's.
4. Jesus earned the legal right, on the cross, to save penitent sinners and to destroy impenitent sinners.

See DA 764.



Wasn't me! See DA 764.



Of course God is their source of life. (This needs to be asked?) For the others, see DA 764.



Yes, the glory of God is His character. This isn't the judgment.



To know God is eternal life. John 17 speaks of this. ST 1/20/90 discusses this in more detail.



Yes, and it also says that the principles of "mercy, kindness, and love" will be used. Interesting, isn't it?

I quoted from DA 753.



What?



Clearly this is referring to the revelation of God's character. Moses asked to see God's glory, and God revealed His character:



So seeing God's backside means that God gave Moses a limited revelation of His character, such that he could handle. Consider Isaiah's reaction when he saw the glory of God. He was "undone."

We can't bear the glory (character) of God without a knowledge of Him. Before Christ can come, His character must be reproduced in His people, or His coming (the brightness of His coming -- again referring to character, see DA 108!) would destroy everybody. So there must be a revelation and knowledge of God's character in these last days, to prepare for His coming.

T: Why don't they die right away? If the "radiant firelight" of God's person and presence causes them to suffer and die, why is there physical fires around them causing them to suffer? Do these physical fires have nothing to do with their death?

Since Jesus Christ took our punishment upon Him, why didn't God's "radiant firelight" cause His suffering and death? Why weren't their literal fires around Him?

Does God's character have nothing to do with the suffering of the wicked? Is it only a physical thing, as opposed to spiritual? If not, what spiritual aspects are involved?

I notice in your explanations you make no reference to the cross, yet no truth can be understood apart from the cross. Does it not concern you that your thinking on this question doesn't involve the cross?

MM:1. The radiant firelight of God's person and presence consumes the sin in sinners. It causes resurrected sinners to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. Then they die. I'm not sure what effect or impact the literal fire will have on them.[/quote]

This is the physical rather than spiritual aspect I mentioned above. God's character, the focus of everything, doesn't fit in here.



I think this is missing quite a bit, points which are brought out by Kevin H's post.



I think this is a rather arbitrary way of looking at things, if it does not take into account the importance of certain principles, such as that death is the inevitable result of sin, that the light of the glory of God (which is the revelation of His character) which gives life to the righteous slays the wicked, to name a couple.

I'm sure Kevin has a reason for saying this. I'll see if I can contact him regarding this question.

Tom,

You speak as if you should be invested with the authority to dictate to God what is humane and what is not humane in terms of the punishment which He chooses for the lost. The very fact that God raises the wicked dead blows your argument out of this world, because the "humane" thing would be to leave them dead. Why punish the dead with death if they are already in said condition? There is absolutely no usefulness in giving them life back and then punishing them, is there? It is cruel, inhumane treatment--even torture (by your arbitrary standards) to raise them up to see what they have lost and then punish them, some for days. It matters not what form the "suffering" takes, to have it last for "days" as we have been told through inspiration would be "inhumane" to Tom. Poor God cannot win Tom's admiration. God is too inhumane to treat sinners this way!

I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek to make a point. The point is, we, as sinners, are in no position to tell God what He should do. When God has told us what He WILL do, we are also in no position to question it. I read in both the Bible and in Ellen White that the sinners will burn, that they will suffer, some for days, until they are at last consumed and sin is no more. I read that Sodom and Gommorah suffered "the vengeance of eternal fire" as an example. They will yet suffer again. Why? Does this seem "humane" to you?

Tom, I must say I do not base my position on this issue on any fanciful thoughts I might have about what is or is not "humane." Do you realize that in all of the times Mrs. White used the word "humane," not one of them was in reference to the punishment of the wicked? Punishment is just that--punishment. It is not meant to be pleasant...and "humane" is a thoroughly subjective word. We could likely get into an argument here about how "humane" it is for parents to spank children. Some people think it is more "humane" to let kids do whatever they want. Such "mercy" is falsely so-called. God's mercy is not of this form. It is not shallow and unbalanced.

The following quote from Christ's Object Lessons shows the balance on this issue well.

Mrs. White here speaks in gentle terms of how God will visit the wicked. But it is clear that when He does, several things are true:

1. God's mercy has been exhausted; the limits to it, passed.
2. God will take vengeance in order to vindicate His own.
3. God will reward DOUBLE for the sins of the wicked.
4. The wicked have no choice about whether or not to receive their just rewards ("cannot be quenched by any human devising").
5. The wicked will not be receiving a gentle slap on the hand.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm sure he has a reason too, as it appears to be his premise upon which the rest of his argument has been built.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What did I write that gave you this impression?



If this is what were happening, I would agree with you. But there's more to it than what is being suggested.



The lost are part of the "entire universe" that is to render judgment upon God. The Great Controversy is about God; His character, His actions throughout time. It will be see by all that He has been falsely accused; that He is just. The lost could not be a part of this if they were not resurrected.



If this is what were happening, I'd agree with you, but I don't think this is what will happen.



Of course not. But God has put Himself on the line, to be investigated. The judgment is, first and foremost, about God. The entire universe will recognize God's beauty of character. This is what the Great Controversy is all about.



It seems to me that the perspective being suggested looks at what God does in a very negative light, which may follow from thinking that God will burn people alive.

What one perceives as the issues that are really important colors what one thinks will happen, and why.

If one perceives that the issue is that God has been tread upon, and who is one who should dare to act contrary to His wishes, and He must take vengeance on those with such audacity, causing them the worst suffering, to prove His might and justice, that leads to one set of conclusions (this is the impression I get from your writings; I'd be happy to have you correct any wrong impressions I have).

If one perceives that God has been maligned and misrepresented as a being who relies on power and force and violence to get His way, but is in reality unbelievable kind, gentle and humble, trying insofar as in His power to rescue His creatures from the terrible results of sin/selfishness, that leads to another set of conclusions.



Do you not read that God is a consuming fire? Do you not read that the glory of God will destroy the wicked? Do you not read that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked? Do you not read that Jesus suffered the anguish which the wicked will suffer when mercy no longer pleads for the guilty race? Do you not read that Jesus suffered the penalty that will fall upon the wicked? Do you not read that the principles of kindness, mercy and love will be used in the judgment? Do you not read that the exclusion from heaven of the wicked is voluntary with themselves?

I don't recall you're addressing these issues. A lot has been revealed to us in regards to the final judgment and the destruction of the wicked. Not just one passage that describes fire coming down from heaven to destroy them.

I don't understand how one could think this fire is literal, considering the above. Would anyone voluntarily choose to be set on fire? That doesn't make much sense. How could setting someone on fire to burn for days be characterized as "kindness, mercy, and love"? How could this fire be characterized as "the glory of Him who is love"? How could this same thing that slays the wicked give life to the righteous?

How is this idea even remotely, in the slightest degree, in harmony with God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ?

From GC 536:



As I recall, when I asked you if there was any difference between the view described here and yours, other than the time duration, you were unable to come up with anything. The things she writes here are not solely dependent upon the time element. If burning someone alive is "unceasing tortures," than doing so for a finite amount of time is "ceasing tortures."



I don't perceive God as acting in any inhumanely. God has no desire that they suffer or die, nor does He do anything to cause this to happen.



GC, how can you characterize burning someone alive as being inhumane as a "fanciful thought"? Consider Ellen White's questions immediately above.

Even on our sin-cursed earth, no government burns people alive as a punishment, let alone keep them alive so they can suffer more. Such actions we could only characterize as torture. Even supposing that the wicked die because God imposes a punishment upon them, why would He choose such an inhumane one? Would you choose to treat your wife or child or mother in such a way? Or, if they had to be exterminated, would you not choose a more humane form of punishment? Are you more humane than God?



She uses the words "kindness," "mercy," and "love" in conjunction with the punishment of the wicked. She characterizes the idea of burning them alive forever as "unceasing tortures."



DA 764 brings out that the destruction of the wicked is the result of the choice of the wicked, as opposed to something God imposes upon them. The unpleasantness of sin causes there suffering, not anything God imposes upon them. God is incapable of doing the things you are attributing to Him. Just look at Jesus Christ. Can one imagine Him setting people on fire? When He was urged to do so, He sighed, "You know not what spirit you are of."



Some parents burn their children as a form of punishment (for example, with cigarettes). Is this possibly humane?



This is from "The Great Controversy"



This brings out that there was never a more decisive testimony as to God's hatred of sin and the certainty of punishment than what happened in Jerusalem.

The thing is, sin and Satan have devastating power to destroy. This is the fruit of selfishness. God destroys by His love and goodness. As God sends light, if rejected, the heart is hardened, as per Pharaoh. God is caused to remove His protection, and the results are as seen in Jerusalem, the most decisive testimony as to His hatred of sin and to the certainty of punishment of the wicked.



God should not be looked upon as the executioner of the sentence against transgression. God sends light, and if that light is rejected, that leads to destruction, as God is caused to remove His protection.