GC 674
The fire that consumes the wicked purifies the earth. Every trace of the curse is swept away. No eternally burning hell will keep before the ransomed the fearful consequences of sin. {GC 674.1}

EW 294, 295
But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. . . I then looked and saw the fire which had consumed the wicked, burning up the rubbish and purifying the earth. Again I looked and saw the earth purified. {EW 294, 295}

The same consuming fire that punishes the wicked according to their sinfulness also burns up the rubbish of the earth. It is this fire that the saints must flee from in the New Jerusalem in order to avoid being burned up with the wicked and the rubbish of earth.

Regarding your question about which fire it is, I think the way you appear to be about things is inadequate. That is, you look to be approaching prophecy as if you could just pluck verses hither and yon without regards to context and without regards to the fact that it's prophecy! Prophecy is not the same as an epistle, for example. The prophets are writing in terms of *symbols*. It's up to us to determine what the symbols mean, by comparing scripture with scripture, or, in the case of the Spirit of Prophecy, SOP with SOP.

Regarding your quote, you will notice that she quotes Malachi 4:1, which she *also* quotes in the DA 764 quote:



So comparing texts together, it's very clear to see that the fire being spoken of in your GC quote, which references Malachi 4:1, is the same fire spoken of here, which is clearly explained to be the glory of God. This is clear, isn't it?

So the conclusion is that the vision, whether of John or Ellen White, is explained by the plain speech of DA 764, where Ellen White is not describing a vision she saw, but explaining, in plain words, *what the vision means*.

1. The unfallen beings did not completely understand the nature of Satan’s rebellion. They knew somehow he was wrong, but they needed more time to watch it unfold.

Agreed.

2. Had God destroyed Satan before it was clear to the loyal beings why he was worthy of punishment and death they would have served God out of fear.

No! This is not in the least what Ellen White wrote. What she wrote was, " 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." Your replacing your words for hers, which would be fine if your words were communicating the same thought as hers, but the thoughts are completely different.

She is asserting that had God *left* Satan (note LEFT is a key word here) to reap the full result of sin, things would not have been clear. "Left" denotes the action of God's withdrawing (which is how God destroys, in agreement with GC 36-37 where God's destruction of Jerusalem is likewise described in terms of His withdrawing), not an active role of God's taking an action to cause Satan's demise. In fact, Ellen White explicitly denies God is doing this in the first sentences of the previous paragraph: "This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown."

3. They are not unclear as to how Satan will die. They just need more time to be certain that he is worthy of death, that there is nothing wrong with law and love and government of God.

This is not at all what she wrote! She said nothing at all about their needing more time to be certain that he is worthy of death. She wrote that had God left them to perish as the inevitable result of their sin, it would not have been apparent to them what was happening. How Satan would die (that is, what was the cause of his death - sin, or an arbitrary act of God) is *precisely* what they were unclear about. They were unclear about this until the death of Christ.

It is the death of Christ which makes clear the truth about the judgment. That is, the death of Christ makes clear what the inevitable result of sin is, so that, after this has been seen, God can allow Satan and his host to suffer the "inevitable result of sin" without their being confusion on the angels part.

4. I disagree with how you explain why the loyal beings would not have understood the punishment and death of Satan. They understood enough to know he deserved to be banished to earth. They understood enough to help Jesus fight him and drive him out of heaven.

I think I pretty much just stated Ellen White's words, didn't I? Where is there any difference between what I wrote and what she wrote?

5. How sinners suffer in proportion to their sinfulness is a mystery.

It's not a mystery to me.

How some beings can burn longer than others is also a mystery.

Because you do not understand something does not make it a mystery.

It doesn’t make God out to be a monster. Nor does it prevent me from loving God and wearing His yoke.

You're not sticking to the points that are made. I said absolutely nothing about the wicked suffering for different amounts of time making God to be a monster. Please read more carefully.

Having a wrong view of God's character makes it much more difficult to love Him. Surely you'd agree to that.


6. Satan feared for his life during the Flood. How much more fearful is fire? Angels are not immortal. They are not fire proof.

To be clear here, you are asserting that fire, literal fire, any fire, would burn an angel? Does water make them wet?

7. Holy angels rejoice over the destruction of the wicked during the seven last plagues. They even pray for a double portion of suffering. Obviously there is something righteous about rejoicing over the punishment of the wicked.

You're missing the point of the passage, MM. The angels are not sadists. I'm sure many of the lost will be ones for whom they had care over. Would you rejoice over a loved one, say a spouse or child, being lost and pray for a double portion of their suffering?

Your expressing things as if there weren't real people involved, or as if the righteous were devoid of feelings. It reminds me of the following from Ellen White:



I'm sure your reaction will be that you don't believe that the wicked will suffer eternally, and that this is what this statement is talking about. However, the principles regarding cruelty being Satanic, and the righteous being devoid of humane feelings applies equally the view you are suggesting.

To torment someone by burning them alive, and, even worse, taking action to keep the alive so they can be caused even more and greater pain is cruel beyond words. To "rejoice" at such a thing is callous being words. I can only ask that you consider the meaning behind the words you are citing. Many statements in Scripture require thought to understand; simply taking isolated words as they read isn't sufficient. Many false doctrines are "established" in this way. For example, those who believe in an immortal soul read Revelation with the same hermaneutic you are using. They read that that there are souls under the alter, and read of those who will burn "forever and ever" and make the same types of arguments you are making. But Revelation is a prophecy, and the same rules which direct the interpretation those who mistakingly undertake to show that the wicked will burn for all eternity apply to "demonstrating" that angels rejoice in the suffering of human beings, and cry for more.

I think this has been treated in the previous post, where I pointed out that the same fire you are discussing here is the same fire discussed in DA 764. Kevin's post on fire would bear re-reading. The text in Isaiah 33:14, 15 asks "Who can dwell with the everlasting burnings." The answer is the righteous come. While God is a consuming fire to the wicked, He is a desired friend for the righteous. The same fire which melts the ice bakes the clay. Why the glory of God results in the destruction of one and joy in another is not due to something God does, but due to the action of the wicked and righteous.

From the beginning God has been seeking to save His children from the effects of sin and the deceptions of the evil one, who has, unfortunately, been so successful in vesting his attributes upon God. So few really believe that God is like Jesus Christ, yet it is this very truth that has the power to heal us.

Look how Jesus Christ responded to sinners. That's how God is. He did all He could to save, but left sinners to themselves if His presence was not desired. God will leave "Ephriam to his idols" if Ephriam will not heed the warning. The warning is not, "Listen to me, or I will kill you, after first burning you alive" but one of the destruction which sin causes. We have nothing to fear from God, but everything to fear from sin.

Yes, it is clear that the “fire” that consumes the wicked in the lake of fire is the glory of God. It is also clear that other forms of fire are at work, too.


The following list does not correspond with the previous list:

1. It is not clear to me what allowing or leaving someone to reap the results of their sinfulness means. Do they immediately implode or disintegrate? Does the glory of God cause them to burn up like the rubbish of the earth?

What causes sinners to die? Sin? How does sin cause them to die? Why doesn’t it cause us to die now? Is it because God is supernaturally preventing it from killing us, from burning us up? How is that not cruel?

By keeping us alive unnaturally all kinds of cruelty happens. We live long lives full of sin and sadness. Some people suffer years of torment and torture, dying lingering deaths in unbelievable pain and agony. Why? Because God keeps us alive unnaturally.

2. In what way is Jesus’ death an example of what it means to leave sinners to reap what they have sown? The description of Jesus’ death and the description of the death of the wicked in the lake of fire are very much unalike. Yes, there are some similarities, but many things are different. It is Satan, not Jesus, who will die in the lake of fire like the wicked.

3. Again, I believe the loyal angels understood Satan was worthy of death when they helped Jesus cast him out of heaven. I believe they understood why God chose not to allow him to suffer the inevitable results of sinning (whatever that means).

4. I do not believe the death of Jesus helped the loyal beings to understand what reaping what sinners have sown means. Instead, I believe it severed the last link of sympathy between them and Satan. It confirmed their suspicions that he was worthy of death, that his accusations regarding the law and love of God were unfounded. We get this picture from comparing everything written about it.

5. I do not fear God because I believe He is going to employ fire to punish and destroy sinners according to their sinfulness. It is not a misrepresentation of His character. It does not prevent me from knowing Him, from loving Him, and from wearing His yoke.

6. Yes, literal fire can burn angels. Unless, of course, God chooses to intercede like He did in the case of the three Hebrew worthies. Angels are physical beings, too. They are not immaterial things. Yes, they can live in our world unseen, but that doesn’t make them immaterial.

7. Rejoicing over the punishment and destruction of the wicked is righteous. I cannot explain how, but it is. Otherwise, holy angels would not rejoice over the punishment and destruction of the wicked during the seven last plagues. There is nothing sadistic about it. Angels were eager to destroy the miserable wretches that were torturing Jesus during His earthy trial and crucifixion. They will also be eager to inflict a double portion of the plagues upon the wicked. Obviously there is something righteous about it. Again, I cannot explain it, but it is so.

Tom, it appears you have overlooked the last three posts on the previous page of this thread. Are you planning to address the parts you left out?

Also, the quotes I posted regarding the consuming fire of God's glory make it clear it is the same fire that 1) punishes the wicked in duration and intensity according to their sinfulness, that 2) ultimately burns them up, and that 3) finally burns up the rubbish of the earth.

Do you agree?

If so, then what does it say about the glory of God being a consuming fire? Is it literal fire? Is it spiritual fire? Or, is it both?

PS - It may appear to some that this thread has gone off topic. But the death of Jesus and the death of the wicked in the lake of fire deals with the disposition and dissolution of sin. Whether or not blood defiles or cleanses depends on the disposition and dissolution of sin. How God eliminates sin has everything to do with the death of Jesus and the death of the wicked in the lake of fire.

I noticed that basically only the writings of EGW are being used to substantiate the thoughts of those posting here, however, seeing that the writings of EGW are the lesser light leading to the writings in the Bible which is the greater light, what Bible texts can we use to substantiate this as far as our thoughts and the writings of EGW goes?

Take notice that I placed this topic in the Bible Answers forum for a reason.

Treating the subject strictly from Scripture, if we go to Hebrews, which offers the most in depth explanation of this subject, we read:



This is Hebrews 10:1-24, NIV. Notice the conclusion, "et us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience."

This gets down to the nitty gritty. The problem of man is that sin has separated him from God. How does it do so? By impacting the mind. We see its effects clearly in Adam and Eve.

The temptation was to see God as not having our best interests at heart. God did not want us to eat from the forbidden tree because He didn't want us to be like Him, so ran the enemy's argument. He wanted to keep us down, in our place, and be able to Lord it over us. Satan completely misrepresented God's true character, which was demonstrated by Jesus Christ, who took up a towel to gird Himself, as a servant, to wash the dirty feet of His disciples, who, by all rights, should have been serving Him.

By deceiving us in regards to God's true character, Satan has enslaved us in sin. The result of sin is seen in Adam and Eve's actions to flee from God and then blame one another when confronted with what they had done. God was not condemning them, but their consciences did, causing them to shirk their responsibilities, blame one another, and flee from God.

Sin has caused all sorts of problems, leading men to seek for relief by drugs, thrills, and all sorts of things. It has made us basket cases. We need to be healed, so that our relationships with God and one another can be fixed.

How can our consciences be cleansed? By the blood of Jesus Christ, who opened a new and living way to the Father. In short, Jesus Christ has demonstrated the truth about God, and when we lay hold of that truth, then we can be healed. We can come to the Father in full assurance of faith, have our consciences cleaned, and hearts as well. We can be made whole.

Back to the question of if the blood defiles or cleanses, or both. Well, what was the problem that needed to be fixed? It was our relationship to God, shattered by a guilty conscience, and troubled by doubt. Where does the blood fit in? The blood represents the life of Jesus Christ, and His sacrifice, which testifies to us of acceptance by the Father, and reveals to us the truth about His lovely character. The blood cleanses us from sin as we lay hold of the truth about God's character and His love. Sorry to quote from EGW, but she states the idea I'm trying to express so well, I feel constrained to do so:



This work is represented by the sanctuary service. The blood reveals the height and depth of the love of God, and of His character, which, by beholding, we may be drawn back to God.

The story of the sanctuary is one of reconciliation.

If the blood represents the life of Jesus Christ, then it cleanse, and does not defile. If it represents our sins, then it defiles, and needs to be cleansed. There is not actual blood in the heavenly sanctuary, but the blood is symbolic. Symbolic of what? Symbolic of the the life of Jesus Christ, and the work described in the sanctuary is symbolic of the work of God to cleanse our consciences and reconcile us to Himself.

Daryl, please notice that many of the EGW quotes contain Bible texts. Who better than a prophetess to comment on Bible texts? My comments, and yours, are uninspired at best, right? The whole issue concerning whether or not blood defiles or cleanses or both pales in comparison with how God is dealing with the disposition and dissolution of sin and death, wouldn't you agree?

1. "For he hath made him to be sin for us." (2 Cor 5:21) What does it mean Jesus became sin?

2. "But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Heb 9:26) How does Jesus put away sin?

3. "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." (Rom 8:3) What is sinful flesh? How did Jesus condemn the sin in His flesh?

4. "For the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23) What is the relationship between sinning and dying?

5. "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Rom 6:14) In what sense are we free from the dominion of sin?

6. "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." (Rom 7:17) In what way is the sin that dwells in us guilty of doing that which we are not guilty of doing?

7. "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." (Rom 7:18) In what way is our flesh sinful?

8. "Fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." (Rev 20:9) What is the nature of the fire that devours the unsaved in the lake of fire?

9. "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Rev 20:14) In what sense does death and the grave die in the lake of fire?

10. "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (Rev 21:8) In what way is the second death different than the first death, especially if someone died the first death by fire?

11. "For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God." (Deut 4:24) "Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee." (Deut 9:3) "For our God is a consuming fire." (Heb 12:29) What is the nature of God's consuming fire? How is it different than the lake of fire? How is it related to the second death?