I can’t tell how this answers my question. Do you think sin destroys sinners? Ellen wrote, “. . . the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them.”


Yes, you did respond to her post. She wrote: “Tom, I agree with Mike's point. . . it's God's glory, or presence, which destroys the wicked.” (121334)


Here’s what you said, “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.” Here’s the paragraph and context:


It sounds to me like you think “Fire comes down from God out of heaven” and “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days” will occur while they are revisiting their sins, which you believe happens before everything else described above. Is this what you believe?


You believe the sodomites were burned alive, that they suffered for mere seconds before dying. Do you think this will happen to the wicked? And, why do you think sin-hardened men and angels are capable of experiencing the kind of emotional agony you’ve described? Also, do you think it makes perfect sense for Ellen to omit the emotional agony you’ve described in her most complete, authoritative description of the final judgment?

The demise of evil men and angels is identical. The suffering and death of the lost includes both. Why do you wish to discuss them separately? Do you think there are fundamental differences which warrant separate threads?


I’m talking about the second death, not the experiencing leading up to it. I assume you agree with me that the wicked will not die the first death like Jesus did. Therefore, is it safe to conclude you also agree with me that we cannot understand the second death by studying the first death?


Apparently your post was not detailed enough. I have no idea what your thoughts and ideas are. How can they be separated from God, cut off from the source of life, and have existence all at the same time? I suspect the first two envision something other than death. Do you agree?


Ellen wrote, “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. {GC 666.2} She says they are conscious of every sin. Why do you believe something different?


We both believe Paul and Ellen describe people who live in harmony with the law even though they’ve never heard of Jesus or the Bible. And, no, I don’t believe God will skip over any sins in judgment. I believe “they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed.”


Do you think God has available to Him means and methods that would allow the wicked to revisit each and every sin without it taking more than a few minutes for some, a few hours for others, or a few days for the rest?


I have no idea what you believe. If a person dies having committed only one sin worthy of punishment do you think they will experience the emotional agony you describe, and will it end in second death? If not, what do you believe?


Are you referring to the first part – “You seem to be saying individual sins are not revisited.”


Yes, they are referring to the investigative phase of judgment. Do you think “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” means something different than what God did before the close of probation, or what the righteous did during the millennium, when they investigated every sin recorded in the “books of record”?


And what precisely does He do now that He will do then?

I agree there are times in the Bible when parts of God’s body are symbolic. However, I disagree it applies to this case. Yes, God also described several character traits to Moses.


1. Yes. 2. Good.


Yes, in DA 108 what is the difference between “consumed” and “destroyed”? Or, do you think they mean the same thing? If so, please explain what you think it means.

I think rather than responding to your questions one at a time, I'll try to write things out. Also, I appreciate your request for patience, and I also request patience, asking you to pardon me if I've been brusque or impolite to you in any way.

I'll speak of four main passages which discuss the subject of the destruction of the lost. First of all, DA 764.

There are two main features to this passage, it seems to me. One is that it's written in the context of a discussion of what Christ's death accomplished. I think it's important that we consider the context of the passages we are considering. In the chapter "It Is Finished," EGW is considering what the death of Christ accomplished. She spends a great deal of time discussing how it impacted the Great Controversy. She speaks of how, for the angels, it revealed the character of Satan, and how, for men, it revealed the character of God. It makes sense that this would be the emphasis, since the angels knew God well, living with Him in heaven, but didn't know the true character of the devil, because he was so good at hiding it. The cross unmasked him.

Man, otoh, does not know God so well, so God had to reveal Himself through Christ for man, so that by beholding His love and character, man could be drawn back to God.

From there is segues into a discussion of the destruction of the lost. She quotes from typical passages, such as Mal. 3, and in DA 764 explains her understanding of what will happen. She makes the point that their destruction is a result of their own choice. She makes this point some 9 times. I don't think a candid examination of this passage can fail to recognize the importance of this point.

She says that the lost separate themselves from God, thus cutting themselves off from life. She also says that by a life of rebellion, they have so ruined their character that God's mere presences is to them a consuming fire. "The glory of Him who is love will destroy them."

There is no doubt this is dealing with the issue of character. She specifically speaks of the *character* which the wicked have formed. Therefore the *presence* of God she is speaking of must be His presence in an aspect that involves *character*.

The first statement says the lost die because they separate themselves from God. The other says they die because they cannot stand to be near God. Taking these both into account, it makes sense that if they can't stand to be near God that they would choose to separate themselves from Him, thus cutting themselves from life.

The next paragraph speaks of how if God *left* Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would perish, but his death would not have been understood as the inevitable result of sin. This eliminates the possibility that God is *causing* Satan's death, since the whole paragraph wouldn't make sense if this were the case.

The next passage I'll consider is DA 107-108. This passage speaks of the glory of God. It refers to Christ as the revealer of God's character. It says only the pure in heart could abide in His presence. It says the same thing which gives life to the righteous slays the wicked. This also makes clear that radiant firelight is not being dealt with, since radiant firelight does not give life to the righteous.

Neither of these passages says exactly how God's character will slay the wicked, but the fact that the same thing gives life to the righteous is a strong indication that this is a spiritual matter.

Next we can consider GC 541-543. The background of the chapter is discussing how sin came about, and how it will be brought to an end. In the first part of the chapter, the theory of eternal hell is discussed. It is explained that this theory is cruel, and has not backing in Scripture. Because this is such a horrible theory, some respond by going to the other extreme, teaching that all will be saved. This is the context of GC 541-543.

She explains that God would make the lost happy if He could (in context, by taking them to heaven) and explains why this is impossible. They have not trained their characters to love God nor the things of God, so heaven would be a miserable place for them. (By the way, had God desired to make the wicked arbitrarily suffer to pay for their sins, He could simply make them spend time in heaven.) The wicked choose to be excluded from heaven.

The final passage I'll mention is the final chapter of "The Great Controversy." This chapter speaks of how the lost will prepare to attack the city, but as they are about to mount an attack, they are stopped by a revelation of God's character. Interestingly, the GC started by misrepresenting God's character, and is brought to an end by the reverse.



God's character is vindicated, which is witnessed by the entire Universe. All, saved and lost alike, recognize that God's actions have been consistent with His character of love, and that God really is just like Jesus Christ revealed Him to be, and always has been.

There are a number of things which go together in one's view of things, including:

a.What is the problem of sin?
b.How does God solve that problem?
c.What is the consequence of not laying hold of the solution.

One set of answers is:

a.It's primarily a legal problem. If you disobey God, for legal reasons, you must be arbitrarily punished.
b.God solves the problem by arbitrarily punishing Christ instead, so if one accepts Christ, one can have His righteousness arbitrarily applied to your account, and avoid the arbitrary punishment but being arbitrarily pronounced righteous.
c.God will punish you if you don't lay hold of the arbitrary solution, by arbitrarily causing you to suffer, and then killing you.

Another set would look like this:

a.The problem is that sin causes suffering and death.
b.The solution is to save us from sin, by bring us back to God.
c.If one does not lay hold of the solution, one will reap the death which is the inevitable result of sin, as well as experience the suffering which is the inevitable result of sin.

The use of the word "arbitrary" in the first set was emphasized to bring out that lack of causation between sin and suffering and death. The punishment is an arbitrary one, and the solution also arbitrary.

In contrast with this theory, if the problem is seen to be sin itself, then the solution is to be freed from sin. That of itself solves the problem. The atonement consists of the process by which God frees us from sin. The judgment is the process of vindicating God's character, and leaving the lost to experience the result of what they have chosen.

These are the general principles involved. In regards to the specifics, there are various ways of trying to tie things together, but I don't think trying to dot every "i" and cross every "t" is the essential thing here. The essential thing is to lay hold of the broad, general principles, such as that God does not cause suffering or death, but these things are the fruit of sin.

Tom, your explanation of the problem and the solution did not adequately address my concerns and questions. Please address my recent posts. I’ll go ahead and address your last post here, but please go back and take the time to address mine. Thank you.


How do you define spiritual slaying? Does it result in second death? If so, does it mean God’s character is the cause of second death?


The problem is the death penalty. Motivating sinners to cease sinning is not the solution. God must justify saving sinners instead of executing the death penalty.


Your assumptions are the subject of discussion. Whether or not they are true is the basis of this thread.

I've chosen to respond to your posts by way of the detailed explanation. Simply answering questions didn't seem to me to be bearing fruit, so I tried another way.



??



??



This question I understand! You've asked it quite a few times already, and I've answered it quite a few times.



The death penalty is simply that death is the inevitable result of sin. See DA 764.



I said saving people from sin.



The death penalty is the inevitable result of sin. If God saves a person from sin, there's not penalty. The justification is in the person himself, who has been saved from sin.

The real results of sinning is God blotting them out of existence.

Your explanation overlooked many of the points I addressed in my posts. Also, it didn't identify the cause of suffering or death.

She doesn't say that God blots anyone out of existence. She said *if* God blotted him out of existence, what would have happened. DA 764 makes the same point, while making clear how Satan and his followers actually will be destroyed:



Regarding the cause of suffering or death, that's sin, as pointed out many times:



I've said this so many times now, and quoted this, or the DA 764 quote, dozens of times, I don't see why there should be any question regarding this point.

Tom, I’ve gone back over the posts you chose not to address and selected the parts I need to know. I’m sorry if this is inconvenient for you, but I really do need to know.

1. 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) Do you disagree with what you wrote above? Do you think you inadvertently wrote something you believe is false or erroneous? Or, have you simply changed your mind and you no longer believe it?

2. Do you believe the full revelation of God’s character contributes in any way to the suffering and second death of men and angels? If so, please explain how and why. That is, explain why you think they are capable of suffering spiritually and dying physically when God reveals His character during judgment.

3. Also, do you think experiencing the full force of sin and guilt during judgment will result in the wicked 1) choosing to refuse their place in heaven, 2) choosing to separate themselves from God, 3) choosing to cut themselves off from their only source of life, and that 4) these choices result in them dying the second death?

4. Do you agree with what Rosangela posted: “Tom, I agree with Mike's point. . . it's God's glory, or presence, which destroys the wicked.” (121334)

5. You said, “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.” Here’s the paragraph and context:


It sounds to me like you think “Fire comes down from God out of heaven” and “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days” will occur while they are revisiting their sins, which you believe happens before everything else described above. Is this what you believe?

6. You believe the sodomites were burned alive, that they suffered for mere seconds before dying. Do you think this will happen to the wicked? And, why do you think sin-hardened men and angels are capable of experiencing the kind of emotional agony you’ve described? Also, do you think it makes perfect sense for Ellen to omit the emotional agony you’ve described in her most complete, authoritative description of the final judgment?

7. Ellen wrote, “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. {GC 666.2} She says they are conscious of every sin. Why do you believe something different?

8. Do you think God has available to Him means and methods that would allow the wicked to revisit each and every sin without it taking more than a few minutes for some, a few hours for others, or a few days for the rest?

9. If a person dies having committed only one sin worthy of punishment do you think they will experience the emotional agony you describe, and will it end in second death? If not, what do you believe?

10. You wrote, “You've said that God works to prevent people from dying prematurely, in the here and now. I'm saying He does the same thing in the judgment to keep them from dying prematurely that He does now.” So, what precisely does He do now that He will do then?

11. “At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4} What do you think is the difference between “consumed” and “destroyed”? Or, do you think they mean the same thing? If so, please explain what you think it means.