That prior Post, (#132171), is saying in more detail what I had restated above. I used the term “self-combustible” not to refer to the sinful stage that a sinner needs to reach where he would come to burn just by being exposed to the glory of God. As I also see, that is because God cannot at all find any honestly redeemable quality in that person’s life and so His glory has this tangible self-combusting effect on the life of that ‘so-out-of-harmony’ sinner. And that takes quite a far out sinfulness. Even with people today who use their selfishly obtained wealth to do some charitable acts, it can be seen that they still have some redeemable, even God-like, qualities. It is such people that I do not see as being capable of “self-combusting” in God’s presence.



I deliberately had said: “Take it one sentence/thought at a time”. So if/since you need to, do this “thought” breaking up of that sentence yourself. To me that statement is understandable and thus your actually peripheral ‘too long a sentence’ objection frivolous.



Really you don’t know this common SDA understanding??



Analogically borrowed the Nuclear Fission world where it refers to the smallest amount of fissile material needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction....



....In a similar way, one needs to reach a level of sinning which no longer has any redeemable qualities to reach this, what I see as tangibly literal, self-combusting, “critical mass” stage.



That was explained in Post #132171.



This concrete origins of that term, of also my own illustrative preference, was explained above.



Given that this actually medical condition of a broken/ruptured heart, seeking to adequately respond to extreme emotional stresses, was forced upon Christ, then I do not see it as natural for him. Given that the wicked will be made to also be confronted with the guilt of their sin, I also do not see it as a natural act. So just like capital punishment death is not a naturally occurring one, but one that is force, even if it is a consequence of wrong actions, then I see the action/processed as a whole as not being natural, but judicially forced.



As proper (SOP) exegesis shows, this DA 764 exposition is referring to the possible, natural physical First Death as a consequence of full blown sin. The guilt-inculcating involved in the Second Hell Death is a distinct process and event. Indeed the wicked have to be raised again from their first death to experience that distinct Second, suffering-based Death....



....Furthermore, in the Hell Judgements, sinners will not die ‘when their mental guilt causes their pumping heart to physically fail and rupture,’ but only when they have suffered their judiciously meted out sentence. And God will fully and wholly sustain their life until this is done.

Also, as already stated, the Bible and SOP is clear that the wicked are thrown into a Lake of Fire (Rev 20:15) apparently created by Fire that comes down from God out of Heaven upon the wicked surrounding the descended New Jerusalem.



1) Biblical exegesis proves EGW’s view to be inaccurate here and that is authoritatively determinative to me. Indeed as I also now Theologically see what is Biblically more fully involved in that DA 764 ‘possible self-combusting destruction’. It was not present truth for EGW understand and teach that more than 7000 years could be involved in the GC, yet she knew that God was not limited by time.

2) I actually find it indicative of this statement not being from a vision with EGW’s deferring to the verbatim quoting of Scripture here. Indeed it is somewhat odd if she was relating what she had seen.

3) EGW historical corrective amendments for Christ’s statement in John 20:17 shows that she was indeed dependent on what her Bible version said when not having a personal revelation of the event. Indeed for years she had no problem saying “Touch me Not...” for John 20:17.



I do not find your quasi-acrostic here to be exegetically founded, and as shown in Post #131957, dealing with the usually cited Exod 33:17-23, God’s glory is not His character traits but His distinct tangible physical “emanence.” That is indeed what was enclosed in the Most Holy Place. And Moses and God seem to understand that Moses request to see His Face was to see that physical glory which God said He could not do. He instead showed Moses other, actually more pertinent, aspects of God such as His Goodness leading to His Compassion and only showed Him the backside of His Glory/Face.



For the various reasons stated above, including the fact that it is the “First Death” that is being expounded upon in DA 764, I do not see this reasoning as being Biblically/Exegetically founded.



I do not see/know of any Biblical support for this view. God clearly still veils His Glory in the perfect realm of Heaven where only Jesus and (other) Mighty Angels are capable of entering within that “unapproachable light”. (See in this post (search “Raphael”)). Jesus apparently more than these other Mighty Angels. Seraphims also have to be specially outfitted to physically represent angels within God glory. God just cannot ever fully physically reveal Himself to His Creation.

Where in the world are you reading: “Christ exclaimed, "My heart melts like wax."”???

Christ did not burn in any fire on the Cross. That is just the hard fact. The Bible and EGW is clear that his suffering from God’s hand was mental, in terms of guilt. His physical suffering, which EGW says He actually forgot for a while during the time when God imposed His mental suffering, was all coming from what the Romans were doing to Him.

The consuming fire of God is a tangible reality and can only be literally physically manifested when it is effectuated. Also God did not need Jesus to die prematurely, so sin was not permitted to “self-combust” here. In fact it may have been Christ perfect life and character that made it possible to fully offset that full blown imposition of sin on Him and thus prevent this “self-combustion”.



My view here is that what Christ experienced does not have to be ultra-literalistic to be valid. Indeed I don’t Theologically see how every actually committed sin of the future, from an unknown number of people to yet be born, could be justly accounted for in 31 A.D. Also with your addition, you actually have a different view than what I have and also didn’t see as Theologically applicable. Christ’s death is not substitutionary to the lost/wicked as they never allowed it to be so applied for them. They therefore only will face the type of judgement that Christ had already suffered for them.



I already did back in Posts #131545; #131667; #131670.



Only in your view. God saw that sinful man can have a perfectly healthy body despite having a sinful minded psyche.



When you begin to be exegetically responsible you will begin to understand from where I am making this substantiated statement.



Uhhhhh. No. I am basing my interpretations upon Biblical exegesis which involves EGW’s comments being subject to the accurate Biblical understanding.



I make this comment pointedly to you because you have actually lost any honesty and exegetical responsibility credit with me. I endeavor to test all things, i.e., Biblical translations, and also EGW statements, and hold on to what harmonizes with the proper Biblical light. You on the other hand believe you have license to outrightly ignore whatever, i.e., Bible and SOP opposes your personally/publicly “appealing” view.



(A) I do not consider everything EGW wrote to be the Word of God. Neither does she for that matter.

(B) My subordination of EGW’s writing to the Bible is both a Theologically required fact and a corroborating, recommended counsel of hers. If you won’t do this, then frankly good luck in regards to accepting and believe errors she herself corrected. Indeed you can start by recommending others, and yourself, to feast on an order of oysters!

It was because of EGW’s, and others in her day, linguistic and cultural differences and misunderstanding with the Bible and Jewish culture that they did not understand at first that the oyster was an unclean meat. As I repeatedly said most of her errors are along these “exegetical” lines.



I actually, explicitly do (minus the would be, in most cases, false humility of (default) “skepticism”) and have absolutely no problem doing so because my aim is arriving at the Biblical Truth. You factually don’t. Indeed you won’t allow facts to ‘adjust your initially expressed view’, especially opposing facts. You only, and slyly at that, allow facts that support the valid parts of your view to be included, and that “slyly” by acting as if f that is what you always believed, when this threads facts clearly expose that untruth.



I don’t know why you are again bringing up this spurious argument here. I had already responded to this baseless objection back in Post #130933. It seems to me that this, effectively, selective amnesia of yours is a naturally occurring “fruit” of you manifestly outrightly ignoring/not engaging the parts of a post that oppose your view/objections and for which you have no answer to. That preferred “out-of-sight-out-of-mind” approach of yours is only keeping you, literally, in the dark, though “blissfully” of course.



I was not actually saying/implying that the Gospel was stake here, per se, but the belief that a prophet can come to change what God Himself had said. EGW did not even have your view of the Gen 3:22-24 statement of God, but the (=mine) “eternally living sinner” one. You just can’t admit that fact and just ignore it.

Those eternally living sinners would not be “saved”, i.e., redeemed of their sinful state, but would be living as sinners eternally. It is only because God made them subject to death by removing their access to the Tree of Life that they became subject to death. Sorry if your selective Biblical view won’t allow for the inclusion of that fact.



My here point actually was, to even do/achieve this misrepresentation Satan had to misrepresent God word. I’ll correctively concede that it was actually done by adding to the word of God which is just as equally detrimental and which you also do by effectively claiming that ‘the rest of the Bible outside of the Gospels contains an imperfect revelation of God and that Bible writers like Moses detrimentally had this incorrect understanding which was reflected in His writings. So these portions of the Bible can be ignored if they contradict your view.’ Ironically enough, even Jesus Himself is subject to this redactive/editorial approach of yours.



Well that just the “straw man” premise that you need to spuriously posit. I (LOL) never had that in mind nor even implied this by what I said. And the Biblical fact remains that man will not live forever without partaking of the fruit of life, no matter how mentally perfect and sinless they are.



Already disproven, a long time ago.



Seems clear to me that your methodology is to find what you personally prefer vs. what is actually the Truth.



I factually have: Emphasizing a Real, Just, non-hypocritical, Genuine, Protective, Faithful, Fair, etc., God, all variously demonstrating His Love. Love without e.g, Justice for the victim is not Love at all, but is only a self-serving semblance.

You are not accepting it because of the actions that are necessary to establish/execute these Character traits. This GC is not bloodless. It is a War which God Himself has had to fight in from the very beginning in Heaven, though there, in regards to Himself (virtually), but not for His Angels. Of course, you and others who hold this view of yours, cannot accept e.g,. that Biblical/SOP Physical War in Heaven fact also.



Being ‘appealing is (a) not my main concern and (b) being accurate is not distinct from being appealing. The Truth is not “for sale” and it is what it is, and that is what I find appealing as it is the Truth. I however to find what surfacely appears to not be, according to human wisdom and knowledge, not “appealing” to actually gloriously be, when I ask the ‘why did God do that question”, as it was originally posed in this thread. I then see that what God did was indeed the very best way to deal with/resolve a situation in this GC.



It does not have to be “artificial” just a world, like our present one, where God would accept/allow for Him not to gloriously manifest Himself. In fact, as stated above, I do not see that God ever fully manifests Himself to His Creation, especially humans, including those in other worlds. It is Michael/The Angel of the Lord/Jesus Christ who makes these manifestations of God as with Adam before the Fall and then throughout the OT. So this “artificial environment” requirement by you is simply an unbiblical and circularly manufactured one.



Creation groans because, on one hand, God removed the Tree of Life. He would then have to “sponsor” sin, if as I see it, He has to be actively involved in regulation some aspects of nature/Creation. I.e., orbits. As this is being done today, that shows that it can be done in a sinful world and also there is no automatic fact that says that human left to live eternally as sinners would ever come to be entirely sinful and not have any redeemable qualities in them. Indeed as many non-believers are today. Again God said that a sinner can live forever which implies that they would have a viable world in which to do this “eternal living”. So my understanding here is based on this word of God and not your private suppositions. (cf. Acts 5:29)



You are mixing up notions here. The “approaching action” mentioned here is distinct from the resulting, ensuing (First Death) destruction action of DA 764. Indeed the reality is that God has to make the sinner come into that unapproachable light presence to suffer that fate. He can easily forever avoid this to be the case if he wants to.



This was explained in its derived immediate context, and also in this post above.



That is a convoluted Theological supposition to me. Indeed, according to your view here, God simply has never reveal His Truth to sinners, as He can do. Indeed the final White Throne judgement revelation will only occur because God wants it to. It does not have to. God could have easily let this planet in rebellion live a life of sin and as I more widely see it, the GC question is why not?? I.e., why not let sinful man live forever as they actually can as God Himself stated! I see that God has endeavored to answer that question by showing that since He created us, He has this right to decide what life he is going to sponsor since this is what he would have to do with sinners. So He endeavored to show that without His various “sponsoring” sin actually is not a viable option, and also, in itself, not the best way that man can live, or will want to live, when all of the demonstrative evidence is in.


Again, don’t forget to answer Post #133507

Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now. I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive.

Here’s the answers to your questions:

1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.
3. Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? No.
4. Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? No.
5. Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? Yes.
6. If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Yes.
7. Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? If people were forced to choose only one of the many different ways God has revealed Himself to learn the truth about Him, then no, there is no one way better than studying the life and teachings of Jesus while He was here in the flesh.

Now, please answer my questions. Thank you.

1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?

2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit? Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?

Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.



If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here.

Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.[/quote]





I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed.

If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy?

The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?



I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general.



This can't be a serious question.



I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right?



I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.



I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is.



Again, I disagree with the premise here.

Tom: I’ll make a response to these statements as they also involve our own discussion.



I have previously variously defended and substantiated in this thread that Jesus’s Revelation was in perfect harmony in all point with what God had actually intended in the OT. There is also the fact that not everything that Jesus said and did was recorded, and also the realism that not everything could be candidly “redone” by Jesus in 3 years of public ministry, though the principle for all of these OT actions of God/Him were all represented and perfectly upheld.

There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God. E.g., there was a perfect typological law of blood sacrifices represent what God would have to do to redeem man for their sins, however the people understood this to mean that God was bloodthirsty. This is what probably led them to seek other gods who were not so (seemingly) death and blood “demanding” and/or even espouse gods like Molech who required child sacrifices. So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not led such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.

You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understand of who was doing an action in the Bible, and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job, where God permitted Satan to do the destruction, these inspired Bible writers (Moses for the book of Job) actually rightly understood that if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it, even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.

So I see it as Jesus pointedly said, He did not come to change anything from the OT but bring them out more fully. And by implication that includes helping the people of His time and also today, understand why God did certain acts in the OT and the vindication of God’s Perfect Character in these. The SOP also does the same thing. Indeed just reading Rev 12:7-9's account of the War in Heaven which exegetically clearly speaks of ‘physical fighting’ one would not understand just how just and fair this choice of a physical war was to settle that ‘Heaven Occupation’ issue for the remaining allotted time of this GC.



When you draw put and focus on the principles brought forth by Christ and which were recorded in the Gospels, it is easily seen that Jesus’ Revelation was comprehensively “full and complete”. This includes the Divine principles involved in the “ministry of judgement/wrath”, the “Rules of/for Capital Judgement/Destructions” as it were. Jesus also perfectly demonstrated that such judgement for high-handed sin and destruction is always either done or not done in the light of the greater good involved/implicated. That is why He decided to permit Himself to receive His Baptism of Blood vs. calling down Hell Fire on Earth before that was accomplished. (E.g., Luke 12:49, 50)



As a working thesis, I do not see that God had a problem with “polygamy” when it was relatively justified, as with the Patriarchs. Indeed the only objection I see of God is when a “multiplication of wives” is being done, as kings easily could given their greater name/ancestral power, yet with kings this seemed to all be in regards to the marrying of many “foreign” wives. (Deut 17:17). It seems to me that women who married a man as an additional wive did it freely and knew what they were getting into. There was no abuse/slavery/coercion involved, but actually genuine love and desire for marital association. Of course the ideal was ‘one man one wife’ and as this was not seen much in the history of Israel, once it became established, except in a couple of situations, (which may have been tangible necessities), it seems evident to me that this was always done out of, indeed, a tangible necessity. Particularly for having offsprings and that in a genuine and moral family context.



Of course when there is no offense of God’s capital laws, there is no reason to effectuate their judgements. I would also add, as stated before, that it was when Israel as a whole was a (relatively) righteous society that the people actually bothered/cared to fully uphold the laws of God, including capital punishments. When they were not, I see that even righteous people did not venture to do so, not only as they probably would not be able to, not having the support of Israel’s “Law Enforcement” (judges, priests, people), but also because, as seen with Elijah (1 Kgs 19:1-3, 14), they would then become the targets of vindictive murderous efforts. Indeed in Elijah episode, there were 7000 righteous ones, that God was going to help him spare during the judgements that he was to continue to do (1 Kgs 19:15-18) who evidently remained in the background and did not act openly and zealously for God’s Truth as did Elijah.


(First and foremost, if any has a view that God was “pleased” with the death of e.g,. Sabbath-breakers, though He had legislated this to be the default case, they themselves have a wrong view of God as he clearly says for Himself that he takes no pleasure in the destruction/death of the wicked. (Ezek 18:23; 33:11). Yet that does not mean that He does not execute such needed and deserved judgements.)

Indeed since Rome took over control of the world, including Israel, they prevented peoples under them to effectuate capital punishment. (Probably as this would affect their ability to raise taxes based on census results). So since ca. 168 B.C. this was no longer a right that Israel had, right through Christ’s time and the NT Church and up to our day. (Indeed that is why I see that it was God who effectuated the just capital death of Annanias and Sapphira for the NT Church, and that actually as a preempting object lesson for the NT Church (Acts 5:11).

Indeed the NT Israel has never become a theocracy which would now surely have to involve having a distinct territorial jurisdiction. SO just as “honor killings” are judged as murders in western societies, executing the capital punishment sentences that God had prescribed with reason in the OT for much more than murders, would also be judged as criminal acts.

Also, in regards pointedly to the Sabbath, in the time of the Temporal Rule of the Catholic Church, the killed people who they thought did not keep the/their Sabbath (e.g, the Waldenses). Yet it clearly was not the doing of God’s actual will.

In regards to the Sabbath today, given what God actually, fully expects as proper Sabbath Observance (e.g, Isa 58) not too many, if any, including especially SDA’s are keeping the Spirit of that Law. So to execute Capital punishment for the breaking of the letter of the law would be similarly denounced as unrighteousness and hypocrisy as demonstrated by Christ in His dealing with the woman caught in adultery. Indeed not too many, if any, can actually cast a first stone here.



Of course, if it is not God’s actual will and/or not done righteously, then it is mootly not contributive to understanding what God’s will is in this matter. Furthermore, to see why Sabbath breakers were rightly to be put to death, as seen in God’s knowledge of what His Sabbath was to do (Isa 58) , i.e., meet the vital needs of people and thus not even let them suffer, let alone let them, as nonchalantly and normatively done in our day, die of curable and preventable causes, including abortion which is mainly done for socio-economic “convenience” reasons, it is easily seen and understood how the violation of God’s sabbatic principles, all encapsulated in the 4th Commandment, involves the selfish and indifferent murder of others. Thus its capital punishment is indeed fully justified. Nonetheless, if today, a theocratic society of God were to exist, this capital sentence could be “commuted” as either life in prison or a banishment/force emigration from that righteous society to go live like the other nations of the world who violate this life sustaining law, and naturally suffer their ‘survival of the richest’ consequence.

I don’t think so.


I agree with Ellen’s view of it. She wrote, “The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New.” “The Bible is . . . a complete revelation of the attributes and will of God in the person of Jesus Christ”. Again, it is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh. His revelation of God is not limited to the Gospels.


Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:

1. Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?
2. Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.” “And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”
3. Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?
4. Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God?
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?


Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

Again, the question is – When Moses inquired of Jesus what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer, why did Jesus “command” him to stone them to death? Why didn’t He take the opportunity to explain things as you see them?

Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?

Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?

I have no idea what your answers are to my questions.