You're agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?



I think I'll defer to you her. What comments of hers did you have in mind? Or, if you don't think is important, just skip it.



I hadn't really gotten into this aspect at all, but was only commenting more generally, that the Jews had caused God to remove His protection from them, which is what the judgment consisted of.



I've not said this. God is involved in the judgment, certainly, as the judgment consists of God's removing His protection, which is something that God does. God removes His protection; He orders His angels to "release" (e.g., release the winds of strife); these are things that God does.



I don't see why, under such a view, God could not have been acting to influence Titus to restrain himself. Indeed, I would imagine that God was doing so the whole time. Perhaps for awhile Titus responded to the Holy Spirit, and then stopped; I don't know.

Regarding the 7 last plagues, I see that what EGW wrote in 14 MR 3 applies, which I already quoted twice recently, so won't do so again.

Your point of view appears to be that God initiates judgment, by means of the holy angels, and then permits Satan to execute the final one? So they are pretty much working hand in hand here? Or I'm misunderstanding you here?

I don't things this way. I see that God is constantly acting contrary to Satan, protecting the wicked, as much as He can, from Satan's attacks. As God is caused to remove His protection, the attacks occur, all contrary to God's will.

If I have to keep asking you what you mean half a dozen times, are you really saving any time over if you had just written your thoughts clearly the first time? Surely not, right?



I see that the judgment occurs when God is caused to remove His protection, which is not something that He intends, but is caused to do. Regarding your last sentence, that's an interesting point. If it were God's purpose to coerce repentance by means of judgment, I would agree with you. But the Bible says that it is God's goodness which leads us to repentance, Romans 2:3,4. So the way I could see this would work would be if when God removes His protection, it is seen what God had been doing (i.e., protecting), and this opening of the eyes to God's goodness (His protection) leads one to repentance.



This seems to be a bit orthogonal to what I wrote. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure how that relates to what I wrote.




God's will is that all understand the truth and come to repentance.



Every time she SOP deals with this subject, we see something like this:



The context here is quoting Isa. 6:9 and following.

We see that they closed their eyes, that they might not perceive, and hardened their hearts, that they might not understand. What God did in this process was to give them light.

This is simply another example of God's being presented as doing that which He permits.

Spiritual things are spiritually understood. It's not that God undertakes some special action to prevent unspiritual people from understanding spiritual things, but such is simply not possible. The natural man does not comprehend the things of God. In order to understand spiritual things, one must become spiritual. This requires a response to Christ, by means of the Holy Spirit.



The hiding of His face is His wrath; these aren't different things, just multiple ways of expressing the same thing, which is common in Hebrew writing (EGW uses this device often as well).



This is His wrath. God's wrath does not consist of His getting piqued, as humans do, but in His reluctantly being caused to withdraw.



The same principle applies to the heathen; when God hides His face, troubles come. David wrote that they appeared to him to flourish, until he went to the sanctuary. Appearances can be deceiving. The life of the wicked is full of troubles. There are plenty of Scriptures to establish this (e.g. "The way of the transgressor is hard.").



I think I may agree with the last sentence here. Would you expand your thought here please? (More later)

I think it was sufficiently clear, all things considered. Take it one sentence/thought at a time. And as I said, ‘I had explained this before’. So see back e.g., in here Post #132171 (Section for DA 764.3) for more.



Since Jesus did not self-combust on the Cross but died of a broken heart because God caused Him to become this “sick” (Isa 53:10) through “extreme mental anguish” (see here for more), then I believe He was “non-naturally” put to death (=Capital Punishment), let alone through the Roman’s “Capital Punishment” method of crucifixion.



I see EGW’s statement as figurative because (1) I don’t see the destruction of the wicked as depicted as such in the Bible or in the SOP in regards to the Hell Fire Judgement. Indeed, as I said before (see here Post #132118 and here Post #132254), I also see EGW’s understand of what she though 2 Thess 2:8 as being out of a wrong translation. The wicked are destroyed in their first (pre-millennium) and Second Death (Hell) by active actions of God.

I can see how your view would need this to be the sequence, but it is logically clear that Jesus endured the pain and suffering that the redeemed and the lost would have to endure in Hell at the end. So the Cross was logically a substitutionary (for the Saved) and representational (for the wicked) of that future due judgement.

Also there was no Hell Fire at the Cross. So while a mental suffering may have been undergone by Christ, a physical suffering of the Fire of Hell apparently was not effectuated....



...And this is where, as I expressed before, I see that Jesus took care of the mental aspects of sins which then allows for God to excise it from the redeemed sinners psyche/mentality/mind. Something that the Tree of Life would not do. However the Tree of Life does serve to “upkeep” the new bodies that the redeemed will be given as a total replacement of the prior on (unlike one’s mind/character) by God.

I base my Theology of ‘Every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’ and not, as you opt to do, only on what fancies your view. That is indeed the one-sided/selective method that Satan tried to use to deceive Christ (Matt 4:5-7). So, once again, since the Creator God said that a sinner could live eternally, with a sinful mentality, just by eating of the Tree of Life, then my Theological View/Understanding here can’t but include this God-expressed, and thus, incontrovertible fact. Anything less, even basing it on what one understands from EGW, is forming another Gospel (2 Cor 11:3-6). Indeed the same deception principle of selective/partial/imcomplete “quoting of God” was used to deceive Eve (Gen 3:4, 5).

So frankly and seriously Tom, your approach of deficient Biblical exegesis, has placed you on enchantingly deceptive grounds. (Cf. 1 Tim 2:14) Indeed building a doctrine on only selective passages on a topic (like done with the teachings of Eternal Hell Torment, Eternal Soul, the Secret Rapture, etc), is tantamount to weaving a “fanstasy.” Those are just the hard facts of the matter!



The operative action/development in this SOP quote is ‘bringing that so-out-of-harmony’ sinner into the immediate presence of God and Godly things. However, as I said, God could easily made it that sinners never be subjected to this. Indeed just like humans in this world live apart from God’s presence. So the fact that God has to make it that the sinner come into His presence to suffer this automatic destruction when it is actually feasible (i.e., in a critical mass type of way) involves an active action of God either in going to where the sinner (on Earth = Second Coming) is or making the sinner come to where He is (in Heaven/Post Millennium Destruction in sight of the New Jerusalem).



As explained above, Christ’s suffering and death takes care of mental/psychological (= “soul”) aspects of the effects of sin. Yet we still then will not be given character traits that we had not priorly developed in this life, but will have to develop them for ourselves in Heaven, probably all during the Millennium period. Indeed many will be saved who were not even explicit/knowing believers in God/Christ.



It indeed helps one to understand the mental aspects of that destruction.

So in summary, my view is that the Tree of Life indeed deals with the health and body of Man, while Christ’s death deals with the mental aspects. Still by the wounds that Jesus suffered, the price was paid for the redeemed sinner to receive an entirely new, replacement body free of all of the physical damages of sin (Isa 53:5b).

And my point was/is that EGW is pointedly speaking of an ‘evil character’ which logically does not lead one to “have an opportunity to make the right decision”. How does an chance to continue sinning make one form a “good (i.e., right-decision-making) Character”??



Seems clear to me. Try it again with the minor editing. An examples is a hurricane. The world is not “chaotically” averting hurricanes every second. But at times a wind can, due to various atmospheric differences in weather/climate, and that caused by the axis-shifting destruction during the Flood, result in this wind forming into a hurricane, then God may choose to send angels to either divert the hurricane from hitting a populated areas and/or lessen it force before it hits land. This is what I understand by skewly vs. chaotic. I.e., “it can naturally develop” vs. “it is threateningly and eminently ever-present”.



It seems to me from the wider context of that MH 416.3 statement that this active role of God is not something that is limited to/a consequence of a post-sin state, but something that He must do with all of His created world. As seen below it is speaking of God’s Creation in general, irrespective of sin.



So the world is not being spoken of here as being in “chaos,” but in needing an active energy and guidance to operate it. Sort of like a bicycle vs. a moped. The bicycle needs to be humanly powered to move forward while the moped is powered/propelled by a motor.

So this active impetus/energy from God for His Creation would indeed be part of His generally provided “basic necessities of/for life”. Still it is not necessarily acting because of ‘sin-caused “chaos”’. It is just the way nature was only meant to, indeed by logical implication given God’s power, could only work.



Indeed, especially in what is necessary to preserve/sustain normal/basic life.



It seems to me that you had actually wrongly conflated God’s active actions to “operate” nature with/as “judgement dangers”. The two are not the same. One is evidently always present in God Creation, the other is the direct result/consequence of sin.



As Gen 18:23ff shows, God does not ‘destroy the righteous with the wicked. And so, as this world involves the righteous living where the wicked also live, then that may be the reason why God averts many potential destructions. However in the time of Plagues, as also in Egypt, God can act to judge the wicked because the righteous have heedinly been withdrawn from among them.



Again here context (i.e., from proper exegesis) is key. As stated before, this is speaking of (as in its later application in GC 35-37) God’s dealing with formerly righteous people (as this Elder Stone was and the “they” referred to here) who He had been actively protecting against pointed attacks of the Devil and not to wicked people in general. These are Righteous people who have chosen to act/become wicked. Just like Satan does not act righteously against himself (Matt 12:25, 26; Mar 3:24-26) he logically also does not act wickedly against himself, shooting himself in the foot, unless he either can gain a greater advantage against the cause of God by such a “sacrificial acts and/or he possibly has nothing left to gain.



Did you read what events led to Job’s dispossession and loss??

-(Job 1:14, 15) An enemy Sabeans attack taking oxen and donkeys.
-(Job 1:16) Fire from the sky burning up the sheep. (It was deemed from God, but evidently from Satan as permitted by God (Job 1:11, 12). Indeed as EGW says in PK 150.1 with the Mount Carmel episode, Satan has the power to make fire (via lightning) come down from the sky if God permits (cf. Rev 13:13). As seen today when lightning strikes people, lightning does cause what is still seen today as (fatal) “burns”.)
-(Job 1:17) A raid by three bands of Chaldeans taking the camels.
-(Job 1:18, 19) A great wind from the “wilderness”(??) which knocked down the house where all of Job’s children were partying.
-On top of this, these attacks killed many, if not all of Job’s servants.
-(Job 2:4-7) Later sore boils caused by Satan.

So all of these damages were done by direct actions of men or Satan and all clearly inspired/influenced by Satan and with no angels of God deliberately being sent to defend Job. The Sabeans and Chaldeans may never have wanted to do a raid on Job until Satan would have here inspired them. Satan can also easily generate a strong, tornado type destructive wind.

That is what I see as a difference be “natural dangers” vs. “artificially” created harm.

(By the way, do you know where EGW has a full account of the Job episode. I do not see it in PP or in my EGW Scriptural Index).

I see God’s “involvement” in a judgement as being actionably determinative of what takes place and even ‘preventing angels to continue/provide a protection’ is an executive action of God. What takes place after that protection is prevented/withdrawn is a whole other and distinct level of Judgement. So GC 35-37 and 14MR 1-3 describe those judgements where God is no longer involved. So your claim of “involvement” here would “misnomerly” mean that God is doing those types of judgements.



“No mercy” is when God no longer involves anything that can prevent a natural course or created one from taking place, which thus also includes Satan’s desire and attempts to inflict damage upon people who had previously been opposing his kingdom and in a way continue to surfacely do so even while actually doing his will. I.e., the Jews would seem to other pagan nations as the people of God though their ways were actually corrupt and evil.



That is clearly what was the case in the Jewish War. Until late 70 A.D., Titus was actually resolutely not seeking to inflict the damage that he went on to do to Jerusalem.



I would say “protecting” in the sense of ““limiting” the extent of the Plagues’. And, as I said before, because it is not until during the 6th plague (Rev 16:13-16) that the needed supernatural influence is permitted to compel people throughout the world to accept the western led “Christian” New World Order.

I am agreeing, just trying to further see how/why God could have had this manifested mercy with these Jews.



It is actually important to this theological topic and I thus do indeed include it to arrive at the proper understanding. From the start I had in mind EGW’s statement of ‘God actively effectuated judgements in the Bible’ related in all of GC 614.2 as:



So in the light of what I had in mind and said, I could not understand what you meant by: “You mean just the one sentence taken out of context, right?”



Understood. However that aspect is still an inherent part of this topic and thus must be included.



I actually see that you, as you have done before, are back peddling on your prior stance. As I said before. You are now saying that God’s withdrawal action is a judgement action of God, whereas before you were saying that even this is not a judgement from God but simply a “passive” natural occurrence.



I am only speaking from what your view had always been before you made this sly slight switch here, and retroactively have tried to apply it to your prior position. Indeed under your prior position in the War of the Jews, God had removed his protection from even before the Romans came to Jerusalem. I.e., He removed His protection and all of a sudden the Roman felt and urge to go and destroy Jerusalem. So I don’t see how you suddenly now claim that God was protecting the Jews during the actual 66-70 A.D. War!!? According to your prior stance God’s Spirit was completely removed from this judgement long before the 70 A.D. decision by Titus for utter destruction.



The Bible is clear that the first 6 plagues are done by Holy angels in order to only be pointedly and thus limitedly effectuated, and the 7th is initiated by God. It is only after then that 14MR3.1 applies within the development of that Last Plague. I have no problem with what EGW says, just how you are indiscriminately understanding/applying it. It only applies to “no-more-mercy” situations which indeed usually have an extended “merciful” lead up.



It is apparently your understanding that judgment is evil which leads to this derogative “hand-in-hand” aspersion here. God’s Justice includes Him executing judgements Himself. And to fairly and justly do so, indeed as either Satan “fairly” won’t do so, or “justly” won’t even begin to a judgement at all (e.g, the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah), I see in the Bible and SOP that most of these times, God Himself has had to entirely do a judgement. Yet he still involves an extended period of mercy before proceeding to completely apply the deserved punishment. It is only when God either no longer wants to have any mercy at all and/or does not care to what extent the destruction is done that He then completely removes Himself and thus allows Satan to have his way. And Satan does proceed to effectuate these judgements because they are indeed against former People of God who he passionately hates and wants to destroy. That is the case with utterly rebellious individuals (14 MR 1-3) and in the end, when Satan will have nothing left to gain, with the inhabitants of the world.

In fact, this Last Plague judgement by Satan may be done again these people who are actually serving him so that they will not come to switch sides in actual genuine repentance, but instead spitefully seek to “blaspheme God” (Rev 16:21). Therefore God’s decision to Himself entirely effectuate the first 6 plagues, through His commissioned angels, was so that this “blaspheming” of God does not prematurely occur. I.e., before these “wicked” people have had the self-generate chance to themselves clear see and understand that they have chosen the wrong side and are lost because of their own unbiblical choices.

God is not “collaborating” with Satan but actually, as throughout this GC, actually just using him to make His perfect will be gloriously self-demonstrated and self-vindicated. And, like in a chess match, that is all because God is infinitely so much more wiser than Satan, so the “moves” he permits Satan to naturally do, or “corners” him to do, only serve to accomplish God’s perfect will. That is also how I see prophecies are ultimately fulfilled as Satan cannot even act to defeat them by not doing what God said would be done, (e.g, persecuting the Saints (Dan 7:25) as this would result in great damage to his cause.



As I said before quoting e.g, Mar 3-24-26, Satan does not “defaulty/constantly” so act against himself, thus ‘constantly seeking to destroy people who are actually serving him.’ He rather is glad when people choose to live however they wish to live, apart from God’s law, even if it is self-destructive, as this was what he wanted to occur from the start of this GC.

Also 14MR 1-3 and GC 35-37 are not speaking of the “wicked” but former followers of God.

Wrong, and surely “Yes.”

As I only do this restating when substantively valid then: Yes.

And since I am not sure what you get or not get then also: Yes and again this objection is then substantively weighed to see if it is not frivolous.

Also most of these things had already been explained before.



Succinctly said, as it is Biblically so obvious, as seen in e.g, Exod 33:19; “King Saul vs. King David” & Ezek 36:22-38) God is never “caused” in the sense of forced to remove His mercy/protection from anyone. He only does so when He wants it to be so, for whatever greater reason He has seen as fit. Indeed God legislating that some sins be capitally punished while others are not is another example of this choice of God.



Glad you Biblically corrected/clarified yourself here. You (LOL) are not “agreeing” with me as this is not my view at all. I was only stating what your prior objection entailed prior to your Biblical correction/clarification. Again, it seem here that you, as patently, also embarrasedly “slyly” switched views now, but tried to retroactively attribute it to ‘the view you always had.’ Even seeking to make me be the one holding that view!?? Nice try. Not fooling me.

The prior “goodness” of God is indeed seen when His judgements are manifested, but only when the people being judged see/understand that their ways had been evil. If not these judgements only serve to vexatiously harden people against God and/or seek spurious punishment-avoiding mercy.



It is actually seeking to squarely “oppose” what you had said above because, once again your view up to then had been that the withdrawal of God’s mercy had occurred before the approach of the Roman armies in 66 A.D. Prior to that you had never made any statement in regards to any “simultaneous actions”. (If you think so then do state the post reference). So it is your sudden, and non-explicitly stated, but sly retroactively applied, switching of view here is what is causing confusion here. When you switch views, just honestly/truthfully state so. This sly tactic only speaks volumes against you, actually corroborating the arbitrarily “dishonest” approach to Scripture/Exegesis that I greatly suspect (to say the least) in/with you..

And how is this actually substantively not pertinent to what you had just said if this is what you meant by the “simulatenous actions” of “a.God being caused to remove His protection”
and “b.God continuing to protect.”??? How did this jointly occur before 66 A.D. act-of-war siege??!



That is indeed true but that does not change the fact that God still acts to keep people in darkness and/or effectuate premature, non-natural capital judgements on them. Israel destroying surrounding nations even before giving them a chance to repent or telling them of the Truth (e.g., Deut 20:16-18), are examples of this.

Again a Theological views is not to be built upon a select passages from only one side. That is the choice tactic of the Devil to deceive. You seem to only want to focus on passages which you deem “good” and “Godly” and ignore anything else. Even that “sanctifying” premise does not result in having a Biblical View. All of the Bible is equally inspired by God and profitable for Doctrine (2 Tim 3:16).



The SOP is not the final interpreter of Scripture, and as with the Plagues and God’s hardening of Pharaoh, EGW may not have had to exegetically accurate/complete understanding here. There are many cases of this in her writings. You can choose to limit you understanding of the Bible to what she knew and wrote, I don’t (Pro 4:18). There is indeed much more to be learn from God’s word that was not “present truth” or even pragmatically needed for EGW’s “age of faith” days vs. our current fully blown “age of reason” even “age of unreason” age. I.e., as our times are becoming more and more like the pagan peoples that Israel had to deal with when coming out of Egypt, God allows us to better understand His wise and just dealings in and for these times and circumstances. The emphasis on the discovery of God’s Love greatly by EGW in her ministry does not supplant or discard the prior revelations of God’s Justice. All of His manifested character attributes are equally pertinent and blameless.



This is the perfect example of what I have meant when saying that ‘you continue to see a dense forest despite all of the felled tree.’ You just mantra-likely repeated this statement as if the 7 prime examples you had advanced to substantiate it had not long ago been all shown to be spurious. Furthermore, you have chosen not to respond to those substantively debunking responses. Yet this is still a ‘concrete truth’ to you?!? How exactly?!! Frankly, and factually-speaking, that borders on being intellectually delusional! At the very least: irresponsible if not also “dishonest”.



If God is “permitting”(??) people not to understand the Truth in veiled sayings, which implies that were it but for this act they would have naturally understood them, then how is this not a “doing” action of God. To do this, he clearly has to either obstruct the rational thought-process of people and/or prevent His Spirit from making any elucidating contribution.

And again, as seen with Christ’s own inner circle of disciples, just using parables and veiled saying is quite sufficient to cause this non-comprehension even with people who want to know and do the Truth. Evidently EGW missed that exegetical, (i.e., wider context) fact. As seen with her initial take on Christ’s response to Mary at Cana, EGW is not immune from making purely defensive expositions on a issue. Indeed a prophet was not immune from making such human-minded mistakes.

EGW infamous, and wholly not logically reconcilable “amalgamation statement” (especially in regards to “the many races of the earth”) may be along these false, personal beliefs/understanding lines of her times. Indeed just as eating oyster was despite her having received the Health Message revelation years before. Again the Bible is to be the final judge of what is truly/fully Biblical and not the writing of EGW.




To you and your understanding they are not. But according to my wider and more specific exegetical understanding, they substantively are. (EGW use of a ‘literary device’ does not automatically translate into meaning that ‘God also used such a literary device’!??)



The Bible is unequivocally clear that God’s wrath first become “piqued” i.e., “burns” (Psa 78:38; Exod 32:10-12; Deut 7:14; etc.); and then related, up to full, concrete judgement ensues, if He further wants to. (2 Chr 12:12; Hos 11:9; Psa 95:10, 11, etc.)

(It would be beneficial to you that when you make such maxim statement about what you think about God, to back it up with Scripture. Then they at least can be seen to been based/derived from something. I am sure your are over-confident that your view is correct, but only the Bible determines if this is true or not.)



[Do state the reference for your (until then) supposed Biblical references] E.g., where exactly is this “sanctuary” allusion. As I had said, Psa 92:7 says that the wicked are allowed to flourish ‘so that they might be destroyed forevermore’, which I understand to mean, not so that their sinfulness will destroy them, but mercifully, because this will be the only life that they will be allowed to have. Just inour present world, many wealthy non-believers life quite comfortable lives, joyful and healthy lives, while many believers are poor and have to daily struggle to survive. Some even die as the rest of the world’s poor. That expression “The life of the wicked is full of troubles” is not always the case. Sounds great, even encouraging, but not always the truth. As I had said below, I see that David, under inspiration, clearly saw and understood that fact.

Even, Spiritually speaking, as seen in our world today, the absence of deeply felt guilt for sinful practices many times does not come to affect the wicked in this life. This will only be the case in the Second Death Judgement.



Perhaps/probably my above statements did this expanding.

---

Don’t forget to answer Post #133507

I don't see the same things being discussed. The other post you talked about not seeing sin as being self-destructive (you used the term "self-combustible destruction")

You say to take it one sentence at a time, but here's an example of a sentence:



This is the first sentence. This should be several sentences.



This is the second sentence. I don't know what you're trying to say here. This should be several sentences.

What's the single commandment you have in mind? What's the idea of critical mass you're trying to get at? What's the self-combust idea? Why would 3000 years be necessary?



I don't know where the "self-combust" idea comes from. I've never used this term, nor has anything I've quoted used the term.

I agree that Christ died of a broken heart, and this was because He took our sin upon Him. The same thing will happen to the wicked, who bear their own sin. I don't see why you would believe this would be non-naturally being put to death, or capital punishment. DA 764 describes the process:



If it were non-natural, then the first sentence of the first paragraph would be false, and so would the rest that follows, as these are explaining that topic sentence.

The whole point is that it's not a "non-natural" process, but something that the wicked bring upon themselves by their sin. We need to be healed from sin, so that we won't die. This is what the Gospel is about; this is why we need Christ.



If we accept the cross as an example of what happens at the second death, then what she wrote would seem to follow. That is, what you are considering as figurative seems to be an accurate description of what one would expect to happen, given what happened to Christ at the cross.



That's extremely unlikely. Her understanding was based primarily on visions she had. She wrote:



This makes clear the issue involved is a spiritual one, and not something due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, to use her DA 764 phrase.

The glory of God is His character. The "light" of this glory refers to revelation. The "light of the glory of God" is the revelation of His character. Note how this fits in perfectly with the next sentence:



Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God (aka "light of the glory of God.). "His very presence would make manifest to men their sin." This is what destroys the wicked in the end. They have no place to hide from the revelation of Christ.



The active action of God is the revelation of Christ. In the description of the Great Controversy of the final judgment, she describes this revelation. DA 764 refers to this saying the "glory of Him who is love will destroy them," the "who is love" making clear this is a reference to His character (as does the previous sentence).

The issue is all along a spiritual one, having to do with character. Sin wrecks our character, which makes it impossible for us to live in God's presence. God veils His presence during this life, temporarily, as a probation, so that we can develop a character, but He cannot veil His presence forever. When He stops veiling Himself, then those who have chosen Christ will be overjoyed, while those who have chosen Satan/sin will be destroyed by the glory (character) of Him who is love.

I agree with the first paragraph, but not the second. There would be no second death without hell fire, and Christ experienced the second death on the cross. Christ exclaimed, "My heart melts like wax." God is a consuming fire to sin, which Christ experienced when He who knew no sin became sin for us.

Also, you write, "So the Cross was logically a substitutionary (for the Saved) and representational (for the wicked) of that future due judgement." It seems to me I agree with this more than you do, as I agree that the cross was representational for the wicked (also substitutionary, by the way), but I don't see how you could think so, except in some superficial way.



Please explain what you have in mind here. What is God excising? How does this work? Why was what Christ did necessary in order for this to work?



The body part is trivial compared to the mind/soul/character. This should be clear.



You are not doing anything differently than me, or anyone else here, is doing. There's nothing special about you that would make you different.

You are, of course, basing your interpretations on "what fancies your view," as you put it, just like everybody else does. Why would you think you're somehow special here?

A more charitable way of putting this is that you interpret things base on how you understand things; how you understand the world, God's character, English (or whatever language you're reading in), your understanding of other doctrines, etc. etc., all go together to form a paradigm. You understand things on the basis of your world view, your paradigm, just like everybody else. And, just like everybody else, you see to harmonize the things you read according to that paradigm.

As an example, your paradigm assigns a lesser view to EGW's writings that you disagree with if you think they are based on a poor translation, or some exegetical error, or whatever criteria you have for rejecting what she says. This is hardly an example of basing your theology on ‘Every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’!

We should view our ideas with skepticism, examining them with an open mind, willing to adjust our thinking on the basis of evidence.



This is the same sort of argument people use to "prove" that people will suffer in hell for all eternity, because it says the smoke of their torment will rise "forever." We are counseled that God is pleased for us to use common sense in our interpretations. If we have an idea that leads to an extreme view, or a view which contradicts other teachings of Scripture, we should view our idea with skepticism.



No, this isn't at all Paul's idea. The Gospel isn't a sentence, but a narrative, a narrative about Christ. The Good News concerns Jesus Christ. Paul wasn't saying if you get some sentence wrong, or if you don't base your entire theology based on some quoted sentence, that was cause for being accursed, but if you preached some other Gospel than the true Gospel. And the reason for this is simple. There's only one way to be saved, which is through Jesus Christ. To teach someone that there is some other way is akin to tossing an anchor to someone who is drowning instead of a life jacked.



This isn't the issue here either. What Satan was doing was causing Eve to view God's character incorrectly, so she would doubt Him. Satan led her to think that God did not have her best interests at heart, to think that God was selfish. Satan vested God with His own attributes, which is how he obtains power, by misrepresenting God's character.

The issue is more serious than getting a sentence wrong.



It's ironic that you would give these as examples, since you're using the same basic argument they are regarding "forever." The methodology I am using is what led me to become an SDA in the first place. I used to believe the examples you gave, Eternal Hell Torment, Eternal Soul, the Secret Rapture, but no longer do. Why not? Because I was interested in knowing the truth, and willing learn it. When I saw that the Adventist teachings brought out a view God's character more in harmony with what I perceived in Scripture and Jesus Christ, I embraced it. If you presented a better view of God's character than what I currently hold, I would embrace that as well, by the grace of God.

Do you find the point of view you hold in regards to God's character to be appealing? Or merely accurate? Do you even care if it's appealing? If you do find it appealing, what do you find appealing about it (other than being accurate)?



Not without setting up an artificial environment, where God's glory did not exist.



This is an artificial situation, a world full of sin. This isn't a viable world for eternity. Already creation groans under the weight of sin.



Why would God have to do anything? DA 764 tells us that the wicked form characters so out of harmony with God that His mere presence is to them a consuming fire. The whole point of the paragraph is that God is NOT doing anything to make the sinner suffer.



Meaning?



This is a spiritual issue having to do with the revelation of truth. As long as God veils His glory (i.e., does not reveal the truth about Himself, about His character), then sinners can temporarily exist. But that's just a temporary thing, so they have a chance to make choices in regards to their character. (More later)