Amen! Nevertheless, Tom strongly opposes this point. He believes God does something (not sure what) that prevents sinners from dying naturally the instant they sin. In judgment, God will simply stop doing whatever He does to prevent sin from killing them and then sin will kill them. The more sin they have the longer they will live and suffer. God's physical presence is unnecessary. Somehow God's character plays a part but Tom hasn't clearly explained how.

I'm not sure. It's what I noticed.



No. God is agape; literal agape. Not literal fire, however.

This would follow only if the only reason the wicked are resurrected is so they can be punished. This isn't the only reason for their resurrection, however, or even the primary one.



Why not?



What is the "so" doing here? There's nothing you said to which what you just wrote should be a conclusion.



Suffering and dying is the punishment. What would "also" be necessary? Additional suffering?



The light of the glory of God is the revelation of His character. It's not a question of God's being physically present, but spiritually present. It's an issue of the spirit, not of the flesh.



This description seems rather sick to me. In addition, it doesn't seem to be dealing with the really important issues involved, but seems superficial.

From DA 764:



This says if God left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished. Therefore that "not sure what" that God is doing is to not permit them to reap the full result of their sin. You've asked this many times, and I've given you this answer many times! I don't know why you're "not sure what".

In addition, you've agreed with the idea that God does something (which you labeled as "arbitrary") to prevent the wicked from dying "the instant they sin" (your words).



I think thinking in terms of "longer" isn't getting at the right issue. The issue is that the more one has sinned, and the more light one has rejected, the more one will suffer when that sin and light rejected is revealed. It's a simple point, and a logical one.

Regarding God's physical presence being unnecessary, I haven't said that. I've said that this is missing the important issue, which is spiritual, not physical. I've disagreed with you that the death of the wicked will be like "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Regarding the role of God's character, this is laid out in DA 107-108, especially page 108. I also quoted from Ty Gibson at length in regards to this subject.

I see. Can you tell my your secret in knowing which of the attributes of God we should be taking literally and which ones not?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"Fire" is an attribute of God? I suppose considering what an "attribute" is would be a place to start.

How could "love" be figurative anyway? That fire would be figurative makes sense because God is constrained to speak to humanity in language humanity can understand. So, for example, to the ancients he revealed record-taking to be done by means of scrolls. Ellen White, on the other hand, saw books. A modern-day prophet could see computers. These are means of communicating a concept. The concept is the important thing.

The concept "God is agape" is direct and clear. There's no purpose in trying to make this figurative. That God is a fire, however, is clearly figurative, and, if you believe this is literally true, then you are the first one I've come across who thinks this. I'd want to know if you think He's also literally bread, or a candle, or a lamb, or a morning star.

We both agree suffering and first death are not “the” inevitable result of sinning. It is not “the” punishment for sinning. The only reason suffering and first death happens is because God prevents “the” inevitable result of sinning from happening, that is, He prevents them from dying the same day they sin. It appears you agree with me that one of the reasons God will resurrect the wicked is so that they can experience “the” inevitable result of sinning, the real result of sinning, the original result of sinning. Just exactly what that is is where we disagree. I believe the radiant firelight of God’s person and presence is what will cause sinners to suffer and die according to their sinfulness. You have yet to clearly explain what you believe.


If feeling rotten about committing adultery and having the husband killed in combat is sufficient punishment, why, then, did the child have to die?


No, suffering and first death are not “the” punishment for sinning.


It sounds like you believe the wicked are capable of comprehending the character of God during judgment in a way that results in them experiencing “the” inevitable result of sinning. But every time I share this observation you vehemently oppose it and expressed shock and horror that anybody could arrive at such a conclusion based on what you’ve written. However, you leave it at that; you do not go on to set the record straight by clearly explaining what you believe. So, here we are many pages later and still no closer than before.


Sin is consumed in the presence of God. Whoever clings to sin will be consumed with it. What is so “sick” about it? Ellen White describes it clearly:


How does the glory of God consume sin in sinners while they are alive?

How does the glory of God consume and destroy sinners with their sin?

I believe permitting them to reap the results of sinning means allowing the radiant firelight of His person and presence to consume and destroy them. You seem to think it means allowing sin to consume and destroy them like drinking arsenic causes people to die. Is that what you believe?


The wages of sin is second death - not a lifetime of sinning and first death followed by resurrection, suffering, and second death. I believe God "arbitrarily" (using your definition) prevents sinners from succumbing to second death the moment they sin by veiling the radiant firelight of His person and presence.


You have yet to explain how "revealing" sin and light during judgment will cause sinners to suffer and to die. Does it require them to grasp and comprehend the truth? If so, why and how will it cause them to suffer and die? For example, will Jesus explain the truth about the Sabbath until they grasp it and see the deadly contrast between it and the sins they've committed and that such revelation and comprehension will cause them intense suffering? If so, what is the cause of death? Does comprehending the contrast between the truth and their sins cause them to gradually weaken and finally die of mental anguish? Why does having more sin result in living longer? Who or what prevents them from dying prematurely?


Do you think fire proceeding from the presence of God and consuming Nadab and Abihu was like "Raiders of the Lost Ark"?


You have never clearly explained what role you think God's character will play during judgment as it relates to the suffering and death of the wicked. Nothing you've quoted clearly explains what you believe. Please take the time to plainly state what you believe.

What kind of "fire" do you have in mind when you read passages like "Our God is a consuming fire", "Fire went out from the presence of God and consumed them", and "Fire comes down from God out of heaven and destroys them"?

You didn't address my point. You said, "Punishment is necessary. Otherwise, the first death would suffice." I pointed out that this is a false conclusion, unless the only reason the lost are resurrected is to punish them.

Regarding your thoughts about God's radiant firelight, I think this is a superficial idea, viewing matters in physical rather than spiritual terms which involve the flesh as opposed to the character.



Children of adulterous/murdering parents don't always die. I'm not sure what your point is here.



I didn't realize you were speaking of the first death. When we are told that death is "the inevitable result of sin," this has in mind the second death.

Sin is lethal, like poison, which the following makes clear:



Not recognizing this truth leads to many errors, involving the atonement, the judgment, and, above all, God's character.



The principle is explained here:



This seems very clear to me. The same thing that gives life to the righteous slays the wicked. These paragraphs are dealing with God's glory, which is His character. The "light of the glory of God" is dealing with "Christ," "the revealer of the character of God."

Nothing here is dealing with "radiant firelight."

What I object to, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is your phrasing things in such as a way as to imply that God is the problem, that He is responsible for the death of the wicked, as opposed to sin. If you say the wicked have a problem with God's character, because sin has ruined their character, I have no problem with that. Why not do that?

Regarding the rest, you're commenting on the same passage I am. This isn't dealing with physical issues regarding the flesh, but with spiritual issues regarding the character.