Is it futile for you to admit the plain reading of John 3:16?



DA 764, where it says that the angels did not understand "this." What "this" is is spoken of in the preceding paragraph, that the wicked have placed themselves so out of harmony with God that His presence to them is a consuming fire, and the glory of Him who is love will destroy them.



Yes it did. I'll quote it:



This says:

1.At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. What is "this"? It's what she was just speaking of in the preceding paragraph, that the wicked place themselves so out of harmony with God that His presence is to them a consuming fire, and the glory of Him who is love will destroy them.
2.Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished. but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin.

This says if God left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of sin they would have perished, but it would not have been been apparent to onlooking angels that this was the result of sin. Why is this no longer the case? Because Jesus died on the cross. Everything in the chapter is speaking of what Christ's death on the cross accomplished. This is apparent by reading the chapter. "It Is Finished" is speaking to this. The chapter starts out with this theme, and the theme is developed throughout the chapter. It starts out explaining things which were not evidence to onlooking angels until the cross, and it ends with this.



Because the cross is special, of course. That is why "It Is Finished" refers to the cross.



I've done so.



It makes the points I've listed.



She doesn't say this at all! She says nothing whatsoever along the lines that had God destroyed Satan before such and such was understood, this would have created problems, but now that such and such is understood, God can destroy Satan without any problem. She says that God gives the wicked a time to develop their character, and they make themselves so out of harmony with God that His presence is to them a consuming fire. This isn't something God is doing to destroy them, but something they do themselves to cause their destruction. She makes the point over and over again that the wicked do something to destroy themselves. She says that God alone is the fountain of life, and whoever separates themselves from God dies as a result.

She says if God "left" Satan and his host to suffer the full the result of their sin they would have perished, but it wouldn't have been understood that death was the inevitable result of sin. Why not? What do you think? Isn't it clear that the reason is because they would have misinterpreted the death of Satan and his followers to some cause which wasn't the case?

She says that they wouldn't have understood that death is the inevitable result of sin. That means they would have understood that their death was the cause of something else other than sin. So if they were understanding Satan's death, and the death of his followers, to be the death of something other than sin, what else could that be than that they were misunderstanding their death to be the result of God's destroying them?

As I said APL, Satan has secondary, manipulative “re-creative” powers and not the “ex-nihilo” power of God. So whatever he “creates” comes from the “Seed” of what already exist. The same thing occurs with man with his reproductive abilities. That creative “seed” was created by God.

My view that man was dying from creation had been based on my mistranslation of Gen 2:17b. So I’ll agree that entropy in man did not exist prior to the first missed Fruit of Life taking at its scheduled time. Same with nature with the withdrawal of the “fruit” ingredient.

Interesting List and comments on DA 764 and that It Is Finished chapter. I do not agree with it however. I see that the “this” in DA 764.2 refers back to chief sentence of the preceding paragraph (764.1): “This [the destruction of the wicked] is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.” So the rebellion of Satan had to be allowed to be played out until the Cross to demonstrate that their sin was fully deserving of death. That is what was finally “Finished” on the Cross. The Angels fully knew that sin causes death long before that. They did not need the Cross to realize this, but solely the GC history and development of it before that. What they wouldn’t have understood before this GC development was that Satan’s sin as it then inceptively was, was deserving of their death. What they realized at the Cross was the (1) true motives, (2) concealed great hatred and jealousy of Satan towards God and Christ and also (3) the great price that it would take to redeem anyone who sinned: namely the (eternal?) death of God.

This hatred and jealousy of Christ by Satan that the SOP detailedly speaks of, also delving into revealed inner feelings and sentiments, these angels may have never known nor understood until they saw it for themselves at the Cross and it thus shocked them that this destruction of God/Christ had been Satan’s real/full plan all along.

By the way I specifically understand John 3:16 as Jesus now being the only accepted way to regain this Life, and thus without faith in him it indeed becomes impossible to have. My question however now is, does He still now, i.e., since His death, still have the divine nature in him to, as it appears to be the case, tangibly provide this physical life to man through these supernatural ingredients being injected into the Water of Life flowing from God’s thrown and alimenting the Tree of Life growing on its banks. So I still see the eternal life of man as wholly depending on a physical transmission from Christ and not merely for the indirect, ethereal spiritual reasons that you seems to have.

If there is no entropy, then there is no metabolism. There would be no need to eat anything. Adam and Eve were to tend the garden. What is there to tend if there is no entropy.

Sin after the Great Controversy is over:

1) Nahum 1:9 - affliction shall not rise up a second time.
2) God's law is the law of liberty.
3) A tested and proved creation will never again be turned from allegiance to God.

Here is the key from the genetic view, creation has been tested and proved. The work of God is perfect Deu. 32:4. His law is perfect Psa. 19:7. New created beings are sure to come in the future. Might there be doubts in their minds about God? Might there be things that we who are redeemed may not understand about what God is doing and must continue to trust (have faith) in Him? Was God's creation so fragile that just a wrong thought brought the whole system down? Or is this saying that the sin experiment has been done. God's was right, you can't change how life operates (mod DNA). You can't mess with the systems internals. His creation has been tested and proven. Christ and the redeemed will be the testimony about the awful experiment of sin.

Are you saying she erroneously believed sin and death would never happen again in the New Earth?

Also, do you know of a statement in her writings where she clearly says, If someone were to silently sin in their heart in the New Earth, God would immediately destroy that person before their sin could ripene into open rebellion?


Ellen wrote:


Do her insights described above support what you wrote above?

Also, do you know of any statement in her writings where Ellen clearly says after probation closes some people will changes their minds and reverse their eternal destiny?

Tom, I've bumped this post twice now hoping you will address it.


Here's an excerpt from the quote you posted, "The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan."

In the Bible it says, "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."

Ellen wrote, "God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions. {RH, March 25, 1875 par. 2} "Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin. {4aSG 125.1} "A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them. {Te 280.1}

You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan. Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind? If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?

Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?


What other questions do you have in mind?

Also, it is obvious that the answer to the three questions listed above is - Yes! Do you agree? If not, why not?

APL, sincerely speaking, since you appear to be sincere, this is what has become disturbing to me with your “genetic” view, as you said, you indeed do see it everywhere in EGW writing, and in places such as this text where I do not begin to see how/why is would/should/could apply. Creation became messed up because of the removal of the sustaining Tree of Life, all indirectly stemming from the “thought” Eve had about second guessing God. So it is solely in that way that the upheaval in nature is linked to a single thought.

What EGW was in “error” here was that she did not understand the Biblical Truth about God and the Future and thus did not see this as an eternal possibility. So she made such “absolute negation” statements based on her incomplete/inaccurate view on this Theological topic.



I do not know of any such statement, probably because it was not a present/understood truth for her and her generation then.

I am also not really saying that God will immediately destroy this person. Based on how the rebellion of Lucifer first began in his heart, which God surely could read, I rather see that such “devising thoughts” (Nah 1:9a) will be immediately exposed by God and a trial will surely follow where this person will be given the just penalty. It may only be the opportunity to present his case and weigh it against the GC facts. So if that doubt/questioning was sincere, that person may not even be destroyed, however if the person was scheming on how to steal from his neighbor that would be “nipped in the bud” and that sin and sinner eradicated.

However given the present realities then of e.g., seeing God, Jesus, Heaven, the GC etc., I do not see such sinful pettiness ever being entertained by these previously careful examined and selected redeemed ones. That is why the Investigative Judgement is so crucial and so thorough. It is not a matter of simply going through the motions. So this possibility of sin/rebellion may only be for something entirely “new” as it was for Lucifer’s rebellion.



I Indeed think they do. Jesus’s statement in Rev 22:11 are stated after the visions of Revelation have been given (Rev 22:6ff). It is also said in a context of Jesus’s return being “near|swiftly”. As such it is spiritually, substantively and temporally quite applicable to the short period of time between the Close of Probation and the Appearing of Christ in the sky. So EGW apparent revelation that these words were said and/or apply in that time period as seen in GC 613 are thus Biblically supported.

Exegetically speaking, the imperative mood also adds more understanding here as it indeed expresses mere intent vs. “assertion/certainty” (indicative mood); “probability” (subjunctive); “possibility” (optative). These statement are even said to be an “ironic command” expressing a taunt or dare, particularly in regards to the evildoers. (See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 490-491, 748-751). So what is being conveyed here is a strong desire that this will remain the state of affairs following this close of Probation. Indeed as it was seen with Pharaoh when his (typological) plagues were falling, God hardened his heart starting from the sixth plague on so that he would not change his mind until all ten plagues had fallen. So the same thing can be done by God during the outpouring of the 7 Last Plagues so that both sides will remain where they were at the Close of Probation.



I did not say “will”, I said “could” and that is “could want to” but God will not allow it then. As I said above, Pharaoh considered it, EGW states that the antedelluvians did and began banging on the Ark’s door (after 7 days since the close of their probation) so that Noah would let them in. (PP 99.3-100.1) Indeed it is most logical and likely that people who will have scoffed at the Three Angels Message will want to join the faithful remnant when they see the plagues falling only on them. That is how base, pain-or-pleasure trained people “think” and react. They don’t do the right thing until it begins to hurt them. The sealed saved on the other hand will most likely, though not ‘assertively, certainly’ remain faithful until the end, however some may freely choose to switch sides then. Hence the “forceful desire/command” of Jesus in Rev 22:11 for them to ‘continue to practice righteousness and be holy’ during this trying time.

When one understand the Biblical teaching about “God and the Future” it is rightly and easily understood that such future decision really cannot be definitely known, so it is not surprising that this is not shown in EGW’s vision. Indeed Jesus greatly wishes here that it will not be the case and thus will surely endeavor to make sure it indeed does not come to pass.