Tom,
Comments like the one quoted below seem to be a last ditch effort here. I dont agree with your interpretation at all

Quote:

---

So I take it you would prefer to dialog on the basis on Scripture alone, as you do not have confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy, based on your answer.

---

Nor do I agree with your interpretation that if God destroys the wicked then He must be a seething ruler using satanic cruelty wanting to fry people etc etc.
Theres no misrepresentation of God's character as you have so painstakingly tried to create a hype about. I dont get it actually, the "it" in your case is, what's your point?
God Bless,
Will

Will, I quoted a statement from the Spirit of Prophecy, and you wrote:

Quote:

---

I believe that the quote you provided is contradictory to whats in the Bible.

---

From this I concluded that you do not have confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy. In what way is this not a completely logical conclusion?

It is not a logical conclusion because nor is it correc. I do not believe your interpretationto be correct, and I should know, I'm the one who said it. How can you apply your perception and make true what I know to be false, especially when I said its not true?
For me the point is moot.

Whether it is correct or not is independent of the logic. Logic has to do with reasoning from premises to conclusions. The premise is based on your statement:

"I believe that the quote you provided is contradictory to what's in the Bible."

From this I concluded that you do not have confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy, since I quoted from the Spirit of Prophecy, and you stated the quote was contrary to Scripture. If the conclusion is wrong, there must be some reason. Please tell me what the reason is.

This is not a moot point. It goes to the heart of the matter. If you have some reason for believing that the quote in the Desire of Ages is contradictory to the Bible, and the reason is something other than a lack of confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy, we need to know what that reason is.

If I read and understand Will's post correctly, he isn't saying that the EGW quote contradicts the Bible, but rather that your interpretation of that EGW quote contradicts the Bible.

Am I correct on my understanding of your post, Will?

I suppose that's possible, but that's not what he wrote. He wrote:

Quote:

---

I believe that the quote you provided is contradictory to what's in the Bible.

---

The quote says that the light of the glory of God will slay the wicked. That seems to me to be very clear. I don't think I interpreted it, did I? If so, how?

If you're correct, and Will disagrees with my interpretation, I would be interested in how Will thinks I've interpreted the quote incorrectly, and how he thinks the quote should be interpreted.

Thats exactly what I meant Daryl, and I even stated that.

Do you understand the general consensus of the destruction of the wicked as outlined in the Bible Tom, or are you building your theology around certain texts to catapult your theory?

When we all stop pulling out our pet quotes and allow all the EGW and Bible quotes provided so far to speak to us, we will see that God isn't arbitrary, but rather just in His judgments and in the eventual execution of those judgments.

As far as we have all been saved goes, man was given a period of probation to either accept or reject what Christ has done for all mankind. Only those who accept Him will be saved, as the Bible says in Matthew 24:13, "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Those who reject Him will be lost.

Amen Daryl!