I don't think so. That's why I keep asking you questions. But if you keep dodging them, refusing to answer directly, and just pointing to what you've already said, that obviously does not help. If you said it once, and I didn't understand, saying the same thing again obviously won't help.

But it looks like you've changed your approach. Let's continue with this interesting tidbit.


Are you serious? You're countless posts on this topic are to convince us of "who is morally responsible for the suffering and death which occurs at the judgment"? Tom, that's crazy!

Had you stated this in a clear, unambiguous manner, like you did just now, we could have finished this long ago. I don't think there is a single person here who says anyone but the sinner is "morally responsible" for his own demise.

So, now that we've cleared up that sinners are morally responsible, we can check for agreement on another point. Do you agree that while the sinner is "morally responsible" for his own suffering and death, God is responsible for making the universe function, and therefore allow sinners to suffer? That without God, there would be no universe, no moral agents, no suffering, nothing at all?

Then Satan can just spend eternity saying, "Nope, I don't agree." You really think that's possible? I don't.

Or will Satan be forced to agree?

Arnold, the point is very simple. It's what's laid out in DA 764. If you've read Maxwell, which I was under the impression that you had, his view of the judgment is very similar to mine, if not identical. So is Ty Gibson's, so if you're familiar with what he has said, it's the view that he has. Or Kevin H., who has posts occasionally on this forum.

Let's take a look at DA 764



The first sentence, which says that the wicked do not die as the result of an arbitrary act of power on the part of God. I notice that most people who hold to the view you do misinterpret the word "arbitrary" here as "capricious" or "whimsical," although the context does not support this idea. Webster's primary definition of "arbitrary" is "depending on one's individual discretion," which definition does fit the context.

EGW is not saying here that the wicked are destroyed by an act of power on the part of God, albeit a just one, but that the wicked are not destroyed by an imposed act of power on the part of God. Rather, their destruction follows as the result of their own choice.

If her point had been that God does destroy the wicked by an act of power, but He is just in so doing, she would have supported this view by explaining the necessity for such an action, and why it was just on God's part. But the paragraph doesn't do this. Instead, it explains why the destruction of the wicked is due to their own choices. She repeats this them some nine(!) times.

Here are some examples: "God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life." "They receive the results of their own choice.""(They) place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire."

Notice she points out that had God "left" Satan and his followers to "reap the full result of their sin" they would have perished. Thus we see that God does something to keep those who sin alive. He does not leave them to reap the full result of their sin. Why? Because if He did so, they would perish. That would not give them an opportunity to develop a character, and make a choice as to which side of the Great Controversy they want to be on.

Notice the reason she gives for not allowing them to perish. She says that had God done so "it would not have been apparent ... that this was the inevitable result of sin." If the second death is the result of an arbitrary, or imposed, act of power on the part of God, then it is not the "inevitable result of sin," so God may as well have done this, because there would have been no misunderstanding involved. The misunderstanding that could have happened was an event which would have been "the inevitable result of sin" would have been misunderstood for "an arbitrary act of power on the part of God." If God is going to kill the wicked in the end anyway, He might as well have killed them in the beginning, and avoided these millenia of misery. But then it would not have been apparent that death is "the inevitable result of sin." Not only would it not have been apparent, it wouldn't have been true.

Now I've made these points many times, and this seems straight-forward and easy to understand to me.

I'll stop here and see if you think this is clear.

Here's GC 670:



This is all one paragraph in the original. I put in some breaks for internet readability.

The whole Great Controversy is about the scene pictured here. Everything God does is for the purpose of reaching this point. To reach this point is the only way that sin can be brought to an end. The end of sin is not, and cannot be, accomplished by the imposed destruction of those who sin. This is because if there is any misunderstanding, that would allow for the whole thing to arise again. There can be no doubt as to God's character, or His actions, which must be fully vindicated. They will be seen by all to have been in the best interests of His creatures.

Nobody is forced to agree to these things. All agree of their own free will because they see the truth of the matter, once it has been explained. The judgment must explain the truth to the wicked so that they can form a part of those (the entire universe) who vindicate God's character.

Force is not a principle of God's government. His principles are not of this order, but is found only in the government of the enemy. God's government is moral, and the prevailing powers of it are love and truth. These are the powers involved in the judgment.

I don't see why you would think so. If God sets people on fire to make them suffer, He is morally responsible for their suffering. That should be easy to see. Nobody forces Him to take such an action. The law doesn't require it, and even if it did, He would still be responsible because He is the author of the law. Why would God choose the least humane manner of punishment possible? Even we, sinful humans as we are, wouldn't do such a thing. What's crazy is having God supposedly act in ways that are morally reprehensible, below what humans would do. Who would set their own children on fire to have them burn for days as a form of punishment?

I have not found any place where Tom says the wicked will not die. You seem to be suggesting there aren't two options, but life with God, death without God, and life without God. I do not find that is what Tom is saying.

To me, this almost sounds as if you are saying:
God is merciful and yet He is unmerciful.






You do have a good point in that others can influence us. There was another here who had a similar view as does Tom, but she seems to have vanished and no one talks of her anymore. That leaves Tom as the only other one who commonly posts that view here. Therefore I would agree that he could have a big influence over me and others. So, yeah, that is a little scary if it influences my salvation. But then, there are others who have an opposing view. Therefore, one would likewise conclude they could have an even bigger influence over my salvation.

So how do we decide?

We have Tom with his view, and we have you with your view. Now, I may not understand each just right, so feel free to correct me and substitute in what your view is, but here is how I see them.

Tom sees God as someone who doesn't change, who gives everyone free choice. Not to be confused with choice, but free choice. People can choose His character, His life, the source of life. Or they can freely choose, without pressure, without threat, to live apart from Him which will result in death.

You see God as someone who changes [This theology essentially makes no room for a belief in probationary time, because "God does not change," and "God will never kill."], who does give you a choice, but a choice of a, follow me, love me, or I'll kill you.

So, if I'm at a crossroads, which view has a greater impact on my salvation? If I follow Tom's view and view God as giving me free choice, how does God not giving free choice affect my salvation? I can either not choose God and then He kills me, or I can choose God, and He won't kill me.

If I follow your view and view God as pressuring me, threatening me, how does that affect my salvation? I can either not choose God and I perish from loss of the source of life, or I can choose God and live.

Either way, I either die or live.

However, having which view would be more likely for me to choose God? In the second view, if I were to choose God, I'm not sure how well I'd treat others, although asygo suggests acts don't count. But, if you talk to atheists or evolutionists for any length of time, they have a hateful view towards God. Many evolutionists will eventually say there is no God since what kind of God would design, (such-and-such). The discussion becomes no longer evidence for design, but the quality of the designer. They hate a God who designs life to kill others, to hurt others, and they hate a God who says love me or I'll forever torture you. And I'm not sure believing He'll only torture people for a short time would change their view. I think Ellen White says something about having this view of God has caused more to reject Him than anything else.

So, unless you can expound upon this, if either of the two views are erroneous, I see Tom's view as have a less impact salvation-wise. What kind of view does the majority of people have towards God? I believe most think God is going to kill you, burn you either forever, or at least for a short time. And what specific power shares that view?

How often through history has the majority been correct?

I didn't follow part of this, the part that says, "You see God as someone who changes." Actually, now that I think of it some more, I think I may know what you mean. I think you're saying that, in this view, God is not taking His vengeance now, killing people after causing them to suffer by burning them alive, but He will do so in the future. Now He's merciful, but then He won't be. Is this the idea? (i.e., this is how He changes)

Tom, thank you for trying to explain how and why you believe sinners will suffer and die during the final judgment. But it's still not clear to me what you believe. Do you believe they will suffer when God reveals to them the truth about their sins? And, do you believe they will suffer when He reveals to them the truth about His righteous attributes of character? If so, how and why will it cause them to suffer?

Also, how and why will they die? What will cause their heart to stop beating? What would a coroner say caused them to die?

Kland, I didn't see where you responded to the inspired statement from the SOP where Ellen White said God can destroy sinners under certain circumstances it would be sinful for us to imitate His example. For example, God drowned millions of men, women, and children whereas it would have been sinful for Noah to drown even one of them. Do you agree God do things it would be sinful for us to do? Also, how and why do you think God does it?

Arnold and GC, why and how do you think the wicked will suffer during the final judgment. And, why and how will they die?