Tom,

You cleverly avoid context when making your arguments, so that it appears you have a valid reason for making the statements you do, and that others' reasoning is inconsistent. CONTEXT! (I seem to be reminding you of this about as frequently as you remind us to quote you. Notice that I have quoted you again in this post.)

What was the context of your above discussion with Arnold? What have we been discussing on this thread? Is it not the post-second-resurrection judgment? Am I wrong to suggest that is what we have been talking about here?

Revelation 22:11 ends the Great Controversy in terms of the eternal destiny of each and every individual, would you agree? Does God or does God not draw the line at that point on whom are saved?

Can one choose to be saved AFTER this statement is made? If not, why not?

In your discussion with Arnold, you implied (but of course, as your inattention to context causes you to continually shift to non-relevant points of discussion, I suppose you didn't actually mean to say this) that the lost, after the second resurrection, can STILL choose to be saved (or at least live forever as immortal sinners, per Arnold's question which you answered in the affirmative)--for God has not taken away their power of choice.

Is that truly your position? If so, how do you reconcile this view with Revelation 22:11?

In answer to your question about the freedom of choice, I differ with you slightly. I believe God will never remove anyone's freedom of choice. However, I do not believe that this means God is a giant "genie" who grants everyone's slightest whims simply because they "choose" them. "Free choice" does not imply lack of consequences for those choices. Having made a choice, the consequence may very well NOT be of one's own choosing.

In my mind, this thread is about just such consequences. The time to choose has already past. It is too late to choose life when once the judgments are already falling.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

PS -- If I were not presently plagued with a splitting headache (unusual for me), I would not be up in the middle of the night as I am responding to you now. I should be sleeping. It is possible that in my present state I have not clearly understood your statements or that I have also not communicated clearly. Please have patience with me.

I've asked you several times to avoid doing this. There's no need to make personal comments. I understand you have a splitting headache, and make allowance for this, but please leave out these sorts of comments.

I am not cleverly avoiding context. Please don't ascribe these sorts of motives to me. I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I wrote out what I thought you were saying. I asked you if what I wrote is correct. I'm not trying to misrepresent anything, or present your ideas in a negative light, but as accurately as I can, based on what you quoted from what I said, and based on your comments.



No, God does not do this. We do! It is our decision if we will be saved or not, not God's.



No, one can't choose to change one's mind, because one's character has been set. It's not an arbitrary decision on the part of God to not allow one not to change one's mind, as if God would disallow it if a person wanted to repent, but no person will want to repent. After the resurrection, we will be unable to change our minds, which is why there is so much emphasis in inspiration that we realize that the decisions we make now have eternal repercussions.



I've said the same thing I'm saying here. God does not take away anyone's freedom of choice. People's destinies are set by the choices they make in this lifetime. God does not force anyone to be saved or lost against their will. As the SOP puts it, "their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves." The context is that, in the hereafter, the wicked, seeing what heaven is like, desire no part of it, and voluntarily choose to be excluded from it.



There's nothing to reconcile. We are not Calvinists. Rev. 22:11 is not speaking of an arbitrary decree, of God's will overriding ours, but of a recognition of reality. We set our destinies by the choices we make, either accepting or rejecting light. We fix our characters. This is in full harmony with inspiration.



What does this have to do with anything? We're talking about salvation, not whims. God wants everyone to be saved. If a person wants to be saved, and chooses to repent, they can be saved.



Of course not! This is in harmony with what I've been emphasizing, that God allows the wicked to receive the results of their choice. This is what causes their suffering and death. Their choices have consequences.



Of course. This is the reality we experience every days.



Sure. The order is:

a.God sends light, to bring about repentance.
b.That light is rejected.
c.The heart is hardened.
d.God sends more light.
e.As a-c is repeated, eventually the heart becomes completely hardened, and repentance is no longer possible.
f.God is caused to remove His protection, and the wicked receive the result of their choice.

When f. occurs, it's too late, because the heart has been hardened beyond the point of being able to respond to the Holy Spirit.



I understand this, and appreciate your position very much, having suffered through this same problem very recently. The only issue I have in your post is in the beginning, where you are ascribing to me the motive of wishing to avoid context in my arguments, which is not something I have the least desire to do.

I have striven, to the best of my ability, to understand your posts according to what I think you are trying to communicate.

I hope you feel better soon. Not being able to sleep and having head-aches isn't much fun.

Tom, your view of things is not far off from the point Rosangela agrees with. You wrote, “[The] divinity flashing through humanity may not have continued for a long enough time, or have been an intense enough revelation of God's character to cause their death. God wasn't intending that they should die.” (120989) I realize you divorce the radiant light of God’s person and presence from the equation, nevertheless, you admit God is able to dampen (temper, moderate, minimize) the revelation and comprehension of His character and tailor it so that the wicked do not die prematurely.

But another point remains – Chronologically, according to the GC account (reposted below), the wicked do not suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness until after they complete revisiting their sins in the presence of God. They are very much alive afterward. It is not until God rains down fire from above and raises fire up from below that they begin to be punished and destroyed according to their words and deeds.

1. “As soon as the books of record are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon the wicked, they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed . . . all behold the enormity of their guilt.”
2. “They vainly seek to hide from the divine majesty of His countenance, outshining the glory of the sun . . .”
3. “The wicked are filled with the same hatred of God that inspires Satan; but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah . . . Their rage is kindled against Satan and those who have been his agents in deception, and with the fury of demons they turn upon them.”
4. “Fire comes down from God out of heaven.”
5. “The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire.”
6. “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished according to their deeds.”
7. “In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed.”

You’re not addressing my point. You believe they are separated and cut off from the only source of life. As you said, “What keeps them alive when they cut themselves off from life?”


I hear you saying, yes, God punctuates their life focusing on epic moments overlooking the rest. There isn’t time enough to revisit each and every sin. You believe the repeated use of the word “every” in the following passages makes this point abundantly clear:

There is a record also of the sins of men. "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Says the Saviour: "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." {GC 481.2}

As the books of record are opened in the judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. Beginning with those who first lived upon the earth, our Advocate presents the cases of each successive generation, and closes with the living. Every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names rejected. {GC 483.1}

Though all nations are to pass in judgment before God, yet He will examine the case of each individual with as close and searching scrutiny as if there were not another being upon the earth. Everyone must be tested and found without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. {GC 489.3}

Every man's work passes in review before God and is registered for faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Opposite each name in the books of heaven is entered with terrible exactness every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. {GC 482.1}

Thus was presented to the prophet's vision the great and solemn day when the characters and the lives of men should pass in review before the Judge of all the earth, and to every man should be rendered "according to his works." {GC 479.2}


Is your answer to the question, No? Do you think one sin is insufficient to cause unimaginable suffering ending in second death?


Why do you think this observation answers my question? “By what means does God prevent sinners from dying prematurely during judgment?”

You quoted the passage above in response to the question above (I merely repeated the question). Do you think evil angels have chosen “the service of sin”? If so, do you think they have separated and cut themselves off from God? If so, do you think God continues to serve as their fountain of life? If so, what do you think it means to be separated from God and cut off from life?


Do you believe evil angels willfully sinned in the presence of God? If so, why do you think they were able to do so without suffering and dying? Ellen said they fully comprehended God’s character, so much so that there was nothing else God could say or do to empower them to repent and to resume obeying Him. And yet you seem to think revisiting their sins in the presence of God will cause them to suffer and die. Your conclusions do not make sense to me.


Why didn’t this happen to evil angels in heaven? Why did it happen to evil men on earth?


Do you believe the wicked will die in the same way and for the same reasons Jesus did? And, do you believe Jesus conquered the second death and voluntarily died the first death? If you answer, yes, to both questions, do you see a conflict or contradiction? If not, why not?

I think you've concluded some things I haven't intended to communicate. I'm sorry if I've had any hand in this. I've tried to stay as close to inspiration as possible, and would like to continue to do so. I think DA 764 explains that destruction of the wicked very clearly, and agree with what it says. I don't see any way to make that fit with some of the ideas you appear to have, especially the radiant firelight idea.

Regarding the chronology, I've mentioned that there appears to me to be a doubling back in the paragraph discussing the proportional suffering of the wicked. Regarding their death, there seems to be a number of possibilities, which I don't wish to go into. The only point in regards to the death of the wicked that I feel strongly about is that they won't be burned alive for many hours or many days.

That the suffering of the wicked is proportional to their sin makes perfect sense to me, given that sin, during the review of their lives, causes suffering as they realize its true bearing, how they've damaged the lives of others, how they've hurt God, how they've hurt themselves, how they've lost out on heaven, and so forth.

You didn’t answer my question.


Yes, I believe the expression “the earth is my footstool” is symbolic. Do you? And, yes, I believe Moses literally saw God’s hand and back and literally heard Him speak. Do you?


You didn’t answer my question.


I hear you saying Moses used symbolic language to describe what God said about himself, that he did not literally see God’s hand or back.


Do you think people must first be one with God to comprehend His character correctly? If so, why do you think the wicked are capable of comprehending His character? And, why do you think it will cause them to experience the full force of their sin and guilt eventually ending in second death?


In DA 108 what is the difference between “consumed” and “destroyed”?

Let's do one thing at a time. Let's talk about human beings. If you want to talk about angels, you can start a thread on that. I assume "The Suffering of the Lost" is dealing with human beings.

I'll say that the general principles apply to evil angels as well as human beings, and leave it at that for now, going into more detail if you want to start a new thread.



I've never said this. What I've said is that Jesus Christ felt the anguish the wicked will feel in the judgment. This is what inspiration tells us. This is what I've said.

I don't know why when I've quoted from the SOP, both you and others have taken upon yourselves to reinterpret my quoting of her words into something else. That seems very odd to me.



Again, this is going into areas I've not discussed. I don't know why.

I quoted DA 764. I assume this is what you're talking about. I don't think I've said anything beyond that.



This looks like a question. It sounds like I may have been asking you something, trying to clarify a question that didn't make sense to me, as opposed to my "saying" something.

I've noticed this happening on a number of occasions. You take what I write, ask some question about it, put in other words, and then when I respond to your question speak of that as if it were something I'd said. It is because of episodes like these that I've tried to be as careful as possible, asking that you quote things I've said, don't embed your questions with what I would consider false assumptions (so that I can't answer the question without tacitly approving of the assumption) and so forth.



I don't think "overlooking the rest" is a good way to put it. Regarding the second sentence, wouldn't you agree that if a person does not know Christ, every moment of their life consists of sins? So to revisit each and every sin would require as much time as their original life. Actually more, because not only would every second have to be revisited, but each second would have to be reviewed and discussed. So it would take several lifetimes to go through, if it were done in this manner.



My answer to your question is what I wrote. Not every question is well answered in a yes/no manner. Sometimes writing out the principles involved is a better approach, which I believe is the case in this instance, and explains why I answered your question the way I did.



This seems obvious to me. Why do you think it doesn't?

If, as you say, Jesus was a full revelation of God, why, then, didn’t His character kill them? You suggested it may not have lasted long enough or have been intense enough to kill them. How did He accomplish these things?


During judgment He is not causing them to comprehend His character for the purpose of saving them. It appears you weren’t addressing my summary of your view.


I’m not sure if your response is a yes or no as it relates to my question.