Mountain Man, is this question referring to a comment in "Heavenly Places" p. 361?

"The abundant evidence given by God that He desires the salvation of all, will be the condemnation of those who refuse the gift of heaven. At the last great day, when all will be rewarded or punished according to their obedience or disobedience, the cross of Calvary will appear plainly before those standing before the Judge of all the earth to receive sentence for eternity. They are made capable of comprehending something of the love that God has expressed for fallen human beings. (HP 361)

In my view, the wicked are indeed "made capable of comprehending", but I do not believe that this will be "necessary" in order for them to suffer and die.

Fire flashed out and consumed Nadab and Abihu. True, they died the first death that way, but I think they died because while in a 'defiled' state they literally came too close to the presence of God's glory. It was after that that the warnings were given about not coming unprepared into the presence of God, "lest ye die".

Stewart, thank you for posting the quote above. Nice find. What do you think the origin of the fire is that will consume the wicked to death during the final judgment? Do you agree with Tom that it symbolizes the glory of God's character, that it's not a physical type of fire? Or, do you think it is the radiant fire/light of God's person and presence?

The origin of the fire, in my view, is God Himself. Personally I don't believe it symbolizes God's character. (Although "the glory of God is His character [and]... This character was revealed in the life of Christ" (TMK 131). This character, I believe, is the great glory of God; His lesser glory is the physical power and magnificence that attends Him.)

Isa 33:14-15
"Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
He that walks righteously, and speaks uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shakes his hands from holding of bribes, that stops his ears from hearing of blood, and shuts his eyes from seeing evil..."

God glows. And the light that radiates from Him causes sinners to suffer and die according to their sinfulness. God will also, however, employ literal fire from above and from beneath to punish and destroy the wicked.

Yes indeed, God glows, "Thou art very great; Thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who covers Thyself with light as with a garment..." (Ps 104:1-2)

But I am of the camp that holds that God does not personally, actively, destroy His creatures.

"God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself." (COL 84)
"Force is the last resort of every false religion." (7BC 976.9)

I know that there are strong statements on both sides of this question; I do not doubt that the lake of fire will literally destroy every sinner. But love does not fail (as a structure can fail); God's love for friend and enemy is "everlasting", and "Love works no ill to his neighbor". This does not detract from the justice of God.

Indeed, and a fundamental question is how to resolved the apparent contradictions.

Here's what I've seen. The "God does not destroy by force" camp presents statements like the following:

"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government." "Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is only to be found under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order." "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner." and so forth.

This side argues that the statements which present God as apparently acting contrary to these principles must be understood differently than what they appear to be saying, in a way that doesn't necessitate God acting violently, or using force, or compelling power.

The other side argues that the above principles are not universal principles, but only apply to specific circumstances.

So this is one area of disagreement.

Another is in regards to the nature of sin. The first camp argues that sin is destructive, and there is no need for God to impose an artificial or unrelated punishment (i.e., one not caused by sin itself) because sin has the power to destroy. Instead truth and love are the prevailing powers of God's government.

The other camp argues that sin must be exterminated by an act of power on the part of God, and that God is just in so doing.

"...our whole spiritual life will be molded by our conceptions of God's character" (TMK 262.2)

What we believe we see in our Pattern, will eventually become a justified response in us. If we truly believe that God kills the Prodigals that don't come back, then under sufficient provocation, why would we not justify "honor killings" in the church?

What we see God doing, we should also do, insofar as our sphere of influence goes.

Stewart, what do you mean by "God does not personally, actively, destroy His creatures"? Who or what killed the antediluvians, the sodomites, the first born, Nadab and Abihu, etc?

God is not bound by the same "rules of engagement" we are.

Excellent quotes MM.