The justice of God, mentioned above, is associated with God destroying Satan and blotting him out of existence. The loyal inhabitants of the Universe were unprepared to comprehend the justice of God, therefore, He allowed the great controversy to play out further. The instant they are prepared, God will destroy the wicked and blot them out of existence. They will not be prepared, however, until the moment before it happens. To delay it one nanosecond longer would be to contradict His law and love.

I addressed this.



I've addressed this too.



I've also addressed this.



I responded to this.



The proportional suffering is due to the effects of sin, I believe, as I've explained. Regarding the fire coming from heaven, this may have multiple interpretations. For sure it has the meaning given in DA 764, and DA 108, which is not literal. It might also refer to the literal fire which cleans the earth after the judgment is over. It might mean something else too.



If there were a fire caused by man, like a nuclear weapon, perhaps this could happen. The description in the last chapter of GC speaks of implements of warfare being constructed, but doesn't go into any detail about them.



Because of inspiration. (e.g. DA 753 is one I've mentioned).



First of all, I wouldn't characterize the passage the way you have. DA 764 seems to me to be the clearest explanation I've read, in terms of the principles involved.

At any rate, in the passage you mentioned, page 668 speaks about it, and page 669 speaks about it in terms of Satan. Also Jesus spoke of it ("weeping and gnashing of teeth."). There are actually many references to this, in both the Bible and the SOP.



I believe something different from you because I don't think what you believe makes sense. I don't believe what you believe agrees with her intent.



I don't think this is an issue which involves God's abilities. Also I don't agree with the way you seem to be thinking of thinking of things here, if I'm understanding you correctly. I asked you for clarification, but I don't think you responded. My apologies if you did.



I responded to this in detail. At least twice.



The same thing He does now.



I'm pretty sure I responded to this as well. The first sentence is talking about the same thing as the second. The wicked's being consumed with the Spirit of His mouth is speaking of the same thing as being destroyed with the brightness of His coming.

This completely disagrees with DA 764, as I've explained many times.



Please consider the underlined sentence. What you're suggesting doesn't make sense in the context of this paragraph, especially with regards to the underlined sentence.

Well, ever since you wrote this you’ve been referring to it as “weird”. However, you have been unwilling to say you misspoke. So, with your permission, can I say that you made a mistake, that you do not believe Jesus managed the intensity or duration of His character to prevent it from causing sinners to suffer and die, and that He will not do something similar to prevent the wicked from dying prematurely during judgment?


You wrote, “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.”

So, it sounds like you’re saying the character of God will slay the wicked spiritually during judgment. You admit you’re not sure how it will happen. Do you know what the result will be? That is, do you know if it will result in second death? Or, will they continue to live afterward?


From what I can decipher your answers to 1-3 is “yes”, and to 4 your answer is “I don’t know”.


You wrote, “I looked on this page for something by Rosangela, and didn't see anything. I didn't comment on what she wrote?” Is it safe to assume you disagree with her since she agrees with me?


I hear you saying Ellen doubles back to before “fire comes down from God out of heaven” when she wrote, “some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days”. I also hear you saying “fire comes down from God out of heaven” is at least symbolic of God’s character and possibly also literal fire or something else.


Do you think “fire comes down from God out of heaven” will burn the wicked alive?


I assume you’re referring to: “It is now evident to all that the wages of sin is not noble independence and eternal life, but slavery, ruin, and death. The wicked see what they have forfeited by their life of rebellion. The far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory was despised when offered them; but how desirable it now appears. "All this," cries the lost soul, "I might have had; but I chose to put these things far from me. Oh, strange infatuation! I have exchanged peace, happiness, and honor for wretchedness, infamy, and despair." {GC 668.3}

Do you think this is what Ellen had in mind when she wrote, “Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race”?


I believe she means they are conscious of every sin they ever committed. Do you agree with me?


Since you believe each person will suffer in duration to their sinfulness it seems reasonable to conclude you believe they will be conscious of each and every sin.


You wrote, “What I believe is that your question isn't the right way of looking at it.” Since you believe they will suffer emotional agony proportionate to their sinfulness I understand why you think the question is out of whack.


Okay. But what precisely does He do now that He will do then?


I assume you also believe “spirit of his mouth” and “brightness of his coming” refer to His character. Therefore, does it mean you believe that being “consumed” and “destroyed” is “a spiritual matter” and not a physical one, that it doesn’t result in second death?

Again, you wrote, “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.”

Leaving them to reap the inevitable results of sinning means God doing what law and justice demand, namely, punishing and destroying them according to their sinfulness. Had God instantly blotted them out of existence, instead of extending the great controversy, the loyal beings would have feared God not understanding why the disloyal beings deserved such signal destruction. If, as you say, God had merely stepped back hands free and permitted sin to run its course, the loyal beings would have been confused as to the cause of death, but they certainly would not have blamed God.

I addressed this.



This doesn't make sense to me. I wrote out in detail what I think in a long post. If it says, "The glory of God will destroy them," or "The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked," I don't see what sense asking "will they continue to live afterward?" makes. After they've been slain? After they've been destroyed?

I've referred to what Ty wrote. It seems to me he explained things pretty well.



You've changed words around, which makes it difficult to respond, as I don't know what you mean.



I'd say their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves. If this is what you mean by what you said, I agree.



I agree they will do this.



This as well.



I agree this happens.

I'm not sure what you're saying the cause for this is. I believe the cause is laid out in DA 764 and GC 542, which speak to the characters the lost have formed.



If she's seeing this the same way you are, as a purely physical thing, if I'm understanding your point of view correctly, then I disagree with her. I think the issue the SOP is identifying is primarily a spiritual one. I think DA 108 makes this particularly clear, in saying that the light of the glory of God, *which gives life to the righteous*, will slay the wicked.



In DA 764, it says "the glory of God will destroy them." Immediately before this, she writes of how God's mere presence is to them a consuming fire. This seems to indicate that the fire which comes down from heaven and destroys the wicked, at least in this context, is speaking of God's character, since the glory of God is His character, and, in context, applying this literally doesn't make sense. Read in context, the idea that this is "radiant firelight," doesn't seem to me to fit. It seems to me to be trivializing the real issues involved.

I also believe there will be a fire which will purify the earth, a literal fire.



No.



I think this is involved, yes.



My opinion is that I agree with what she wrote, but not with what you think.



I'm not sure what mean by this.



I wrote more than this. I wrote out several paragraphs. I spoke of the principles of self-sacrificing love vs. selfishness.



I've responded to this several times. He doesn't allow them to reap the full result of their sin, as explained in DA 764.



A revelation of His character.



I'm not following your reasoning here. Why would it mean that?



I agree with this, although "how the revelation of God's character" probably would be a clearer way of putting it than "how God's character."



No, it can't mean this. This doesn't make sense in context. First of all, "leaving" someone to reap the consequence of a choice they've made can't mean killing them. Secondly, even assuming it did mean this, one could hardly argue that the reason God didn't kill them immediately is because had He done so, it wouldn't have been understood that death is the inevitable consequence of sin. That doesn't make sense.



This is a nice theory, and I'm not saying it isn't true, but it's not what DA 764 says.



DA 764 says not only would their have been confusion as to the causes of death for the wicked, but it would have caused a seed of doubt to arise in regards to God's character, which is saying that they *would* have blamed God. This was the whole problem. God could not have permitted Satan to perish, because so doing would have caused a seed of doubt to arise.

Tom, thank you for responding to my questions and comments. I hear you saying the cause of suffering during judgment is sin. I have no idea what part you think God's character will play in their suffering. And, I have no idea what you think the cause of death will be (except that you are certain they will not be burned alive or die of a broken heart). One minute they are suffering excruciating, unimaginable spiritual agony and the next they are mysteriously dead.

Really? I've written quite a lot about this. I also quoted Ty Gibson on this.



I didn't say this.



Nor this.

I think DA 764 would be good to study in regards to your questions. Also, the chapters "Gethsemane" and "Calvary" which discuss Christ's suffering in regards to sin.

Tom, I see where you denied things, but I didn't see where you actually explained what you believe. So, I still have no idea what you believe. It would be nice if you would address my questions and comments in a way that leaves no doubt as to what you believe.

I've written several long posts. Why not look at those? Those weren't denying things, but stating what I believed.

I also quoted from Kevin H., and from Ty Gibson, and these weren't denying things either.

Basically, consider things from the perspective of what is the problem, and how does it get fixed. What we believe follows from that.

I see the problem as being sin itself causing things which are bad. This needs to be fixed. It's fixed by what Christ did, and participating in that. For example:



This identifies the problem of sin as being one of living by the law of selfishness, as opposed to the law of life for the universe. God needs to get us from the law of sin and death to the law of life.

How did we get to the law of sin and death? Satan has misrepresented God's character. How do we get to the law of life? By believing the truth about God, which Jesus Christ revealed.



This brings out that the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. This makes perfect sense to me. This is the way to get us from the law of sin and death to the law of life. The revelation of God is the only way that we can be set right and kept right with God.

I think it's possible to understand and explain all of these things in terms of the law, but quite a bit more confusing. I think a child could pretty easily understand the things I wrote above. I don't think the same thing is true in regards to the legal theories I've heard. If the concepts are presented in legal language turn out to be the same as what I've presented above (Fifield, for example, does this) then I'm an agreement. If it leads to different ideas, or even different emphases, then I think this is incorrect. It's very clear to me that if the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, that's where our emphasis should be.

When we discuss the destruction of the wicked, we're really dealing with how it is that the law of sin and death results in death. It doesn't seem to me that the specifics of this, in terms of the death certificate that an M.D. would provide, is what's really important. What's really important is to understand that the essence of sin is selfishness, and selfishness is not a principle that can support life. It can do nothing but lead to misery and death. This is why it is inevitable that sin results in suffering and death. (YI 6/13/01)

Where I disagree with your ideas is where they are not in harmony with the principles I've laid out here.