It's right in the passage you quoted.



Yes.



"Will be used" means God will use these principles.



Isn't it clear this is speaking of the destruction of the wicked? That's been the context for several pages. She starts out talking about the cruel ideas of burning people alive for eternity, then explains that as a reaction to these that some had turned to universalism, and explains why this is wrong. Universalism is the context of the GC 541-543 passage. She explains that universalism is wrong, but that, although the lost will be not be saved, their being lost is not due to any lack on the part of God. In particular, far from acting cruelly towards them, He acts towards them according to the principles of "kindness, mercy and love," as well as "love your enemies."

She explains that God would make them happy if He could (i.e., take them to heaven, in context), and explains why this is impossible, because of the ruin they have caused to their own character. She explains how unhappy they would be in heaven.

You must have missed one of my earlier posts. I'm not saying God "sets" them on fire "for the purpose of causing them excruciating pain." The fire is just a natural byproduct of the choices the wicked themselves make. Much like the excruciating mental anguish they will experience, the fire is caused by the wicked themselves. But exactly how they set themselves on fire is not something I would like to discuss at this time.

In any case, here's what I wrote: It isn't God's design that people literally burn, but it's just what happens when God reveals His unveiled glory to the wicked. God doesn't cause the fire, it just happens because of the choices the wicked themselves made. God does not impose this literal fire on the wicked, it just happens naturally. Had the wicked chosen to be made godly, they would not be flammable in God's presence. That God was the one who raised them from the dead, enabling them to experience such suffering, is irrelevant.

God's purpose is not to cause excruciating pain. His purpose is something completely different, The excruciating pain happens against God's will. So we're OK now?

This pain would only last for a few seconds, as the fire would destroy them quickly. If this is what you have in mind, that's not so bad (although that the problem of the wicked's sinning is that it makes them flammable seems a bit weird to me).

If that's the case, you've said some rather misleading things in this thread:



Now you claim, "I didn't say literal fire is terrible. ... The problem isn't the fire...."

Let's think a bit about the one from post #119331. You say it's impossible to "think about anything at all, other than the excruciating pain you're feeling" while literally on fire. But you say that while experiencing a "more terrible" pain while standing in the presence of God's unveiled glory, the wicked will have cognitive abilities.


Probably not.

Let's see how superior your option is. Your belief is that God will set the wicked down, then reveal His glory to them, which will cause them such mental anguish that they would prefer to be crushed by a mountain, and keep doing it until the wicked verbalize that God is right and they are wrong. If your child disagreed with you, would *you* set him down and show him all the reasons why he is wrong, and keep at it even if he becomes suicidal, for the purpose of getting him to admit that you are right?



First of all, you are inconsistent with your X and Y. (See above quotes.)

You said: DA 108, which speaks of the same thing, saying the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked, speaks in the very next sentence of Christ as "the revealer of God's character."

Is it by the choice of the wicked that Christ will reveal God's character? If they want to hide from it, will Jesus stop revealing it? If the wicked want to live forever instead of becoming dead forever, can they choose that?

I could last days, as inspiration tells us. More sin -> more days.

Isn't it the same for the mental anguish view? A person with only one sin will be destroyed quickly by the revelation of God's character. But a person with a billion sins will somehow survive the first 999,999,999 sins and still be alive for the billionth sin to be contrasted with God's character. IOW, 1 sin kills quickly, but a billion sins is not as lethal.

Reading that, it doesn't look the same for the mental anguish view. The literal fire view, with sin being burned, makes more sense in that one with more sins burns longer.

Either that, or some unnamed entity is keeping the sinner alive long enough to make it to sin #1,000,000,000. Maybe God's actions in the mental anguish view have something to do with how much excruciating pain is experienced by the sinner.

Only if God took special action to do the things I said He was doing, and of which you complained.



No, it's not the same, for the reason I've been pointing out, which is that God is not arbitrarily causing (i.e. imposing) suffering upon the wicked. They suffer because of their own choices, not because of something God is doing to them.

For example, consider Judas. Judas suffered and died as a result of his own choice to refuse to repent as Christ was washing his feet, and betray Christ. Christ did not impose suffering upon Christ, but merely looked at him with love and compassion. Judas' suffering and death was caused by himself.

This is the correct view of the judgment. The suffering and death of the wicked come as a result of their own choices. DA 764 says this repeatedly. GC 541-543 also explains this. So does GC 36-37.



I don't know if you read what I wrote to MM, but it fits here.



Nobody has just one sin. When one lives according to the principle of selfishness, his life is filled with sin.



As James puts it, "Sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." As sin is founded on the principle of selfishness, it's inevitable that sin leads to death (or, death is "the inevitable result of sin" as per DA 764). It cannot be otherwise, because selfishness is not a principle that can support life. It is not the "law of life for the universe" which is self-sacrificing love, but instead, the law of death. Selfishness can only produce suffering and death, which is why the SOP tells us that suffering and death is inevitable wherever there is sin.



No, as DA 764 points out, it's not an arbitrary act of power of God that causes these things, but the choices of the lost themselves. God is love. If His love is rejected and resisted, and one insists upon the path of selfishness instead, then, as in the case of Judas, suffering and death result. God is not responsible for either suffering or death.

I explained this in terms of losing a loved one, so the suffering is tied to one's cognitive abilities.



Why not? Why do you think God would do something you wouldn't do?



I've not expressed things in this way, nor do I think this is what is happening. It seems that no matter how I try to explain, nor who I quote that also explains this (I've quoted Ty Gibson, and Kevin H.) you are bound and determined to view God in the most negative light possible. I don't understand the motivation to do so.

Why not try to view things in a positive way? Do you think it's possible the wicked may have been resurrected to be treated according to the principles of "kindness, mercy and love"? Is it possible for you to consider the judgment in more positive terms? If so, please do so, particularly in respect to the viewpoint that Ty Gibson and Keven H. spoke of. And regarding your own view, if you can think of some positive way of putting causing one to be engulfed in flames and suffer for days, please do so.



That Christ reveals God's character is simply the way things are.



From DA 764:



God gives time for the character to be developed. God does not leave the wicked to reap the full result of their sin before they have had a chance to do so. Once they have made their choice, He allows them to receive the results of that choice.



Yes! God does not take the power of choice from the wicked. As DA 764 points out, the receive the result of their choice. GC 543 says the same thing ("the exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves").

Your view here, Tom, goes completely contrary to what I was brought up believing based on scriptures like Psalm 37:4-5. If one does not need to commit his way to the Lord in righteousness in order to have the desires of his heart, it seems that Satan does indeed have a kingdom all his own in which God will not interfere.

If one can merely avoid God's punishment by his own free choice, I am certain there will be no such thing as punishment--and in its place, we will have immortal sinners.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Continuing that line of thought, texts like these would be invalidated:

----------

But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out. Numbers 32:23

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:15

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. Revelation 22:11

----------

That last text could never be true, because God would not really take anyone's free choice away and force them to remain as they are.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In the portion you quoted, I made three points:

1.God does not take away the power of choice of the wicked.
2.The wicked receive the result of their choice.
3.GC 543 echoes point 2 in saying that their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves.

Which of these points are you disagreeing with?



I said nothing about not needed to commit one's way to the Lord.



I'm not sure what you're arguing here. My point, from what you cited above, is that God does not take away the wicked's power of choice. They receive what they choose. You are writing here that one cannot "merely avoid God's punishment by his own free choice," which isn't something I said.

There are two laws in the universe. One is the law of life for the universe, which is self-sacrificing love. One receives from the hand of God to give to others. The other is the law of selfishness. The wicked have chosen the law of selfishness, and receive the results of that choice.

God does not force anyone to choose what they choose.

As GC 543 says:





This looks to be saying the same thing Sister White said, that the wicked receive the result of their choice.



This is one I've been quoting to make my point.



I'm trying to understand your point. I think what you're saying is that Rev. 22:11 can only be true if God takes away the power of choice of the wicked. Is that correct? Presumably this would also apply to the righteous.

Iow, your argument is:

1.The text says "let he who is righteous remain righteous still" and "let him who is unholy remain unholy," which means that no matter what the holy person or unholy person may wish to do, they must remain holy or unholy respectively, because that's what the text says.

2.Therefore God takes away their free will.

3.Therefore what I said is incorrect, because if it were correct, the above text could not be true.

Did I understand you correctly?