1. "How could she make it more clear that the death of the wicked is something they initiate?" But "all have sinned" so why haven't they died yet? Is it because God is preventing them from dying? If so, how? Is it by veiling His glory? If so, doesn't that suggest it is the unveiled glory of God that kills sinners?

2. "Please read my post addressing this." I did, that's why asked. Does God destroy sinners in the lake of fire by showing up or by withdrawing?

3. Why doesn't the poison cause them to die now? See number 1 above.

4. See number 2 above.

TE: "God bears no responsibility whatever for evil, other than whatever responsibility attaches to creating beings with free will, and God has more than addressed this by the sacrifice of His Son."

MM: What is the nature of this responsibility, as you understand it (not what it's not)? How did Jesus' life, death, and resurrection address it?

God is innocent. He has no responsibility. He is constrained by His love for us, to save us. As Christ put it, "I restored that which I took not away." God, out of the love of His heart, provides a way out from the power of sin.

1. "How could she make it more clear that the death of the wicked is something they initiate?" But "all have sinned" so why haven't they died yet? Is it because God is preventing them from dying? If so, how? Is it by veiling His glory? If so, doesn't that suggest it is the unveiled glory of God that kills sinners?

These are good questions, but they don't take from the fact that EGW is stating as clearly as it is possible to state that the death of the wicked is something which takes place because of *their* initiative. She makes that point over and over and over again. Every sentence in that paragraph is making this point. Can we agree on that?

Ok, on to your questions. People haven't died yet because God takes action to prevent them from dying, as you suggest. To suggest that it's the glory of God that destroys the wicked is fine, since EGW says, "The glory of He who is love destroys them." Of course, the glory of God is His character, and there's no reason that God's character (which is simply what the life of Jesus Christ revealed) should kill anyone. This just goes to show what an insidious thing sin is.

2. "Please read my post addressing this." I did, that's why asked. Does God destroy sinners in the lake of fire by showing up or by withdrawing?

I discussed this in the post. I'm having trouble believing you read the post I'm referring to, because the purpose of the post was to explain this very thing. It was quite a long post. The post discussed my understanding of the judgment. If I have to, I can repeat what I wrote, but it was quite long, and I don't think I saved a copy. But if need be, that's fine, I'll be happy to rewrite what I posted. This isn't a question I can answer in a sentence or two.

3. Why doesn't the poison cause them to die now? See number 1 above.

If God didn't do anything, and people died as soon as they sin, which they would if He didn't do anything, no one could be saved. Regarding that people would die immediately, see FW first essay, around page 21 I think.

4. See number 2 above.

MM: It sounds like you are saying God punishes sinners by allowing evil angels to destroy them.

1. What would happen if God never gave evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

2. What would happen if the evil angels choose not to destroy sinners when God gave them permission?

3. If death is the inevitable result of sinning why, then, does God also give evil angels permission to destroy them? Why not simply allow them to die? Why destroy them first? Isn't allowing them to die good enough?

1. "... the fact is destroying sinners is contrary to His character..." But I thought you argued earlier that He does indeed destroy sinners by giving evil angels permission to do it.

2. "The timing of the judgment happens at the time of God's choosing ..." But if the relationship between sinning and destruction is based on the principal of reaping and sowing, how can the consequences be delayed?

"As EGW puts it, sinners reap that which they have sown. Those who have sinned determine how much destruction." In the cases of sinners who have suffered catastrophic death, like the Antediluvians and the Sodomites, how did their sinful choices cause such radical and devastating destruction? How did eating flesh cause the forces of nature to unleash a flood, or how did licentiousness cause a conflagration?

"... God decides when to withdraw His spirit, and then Satan does what he wants to do." So, then, Satan decides how to destroy sinners? God leaves it up to Satan to determine what is appropriate?

3. "*Any* time God withdraws His Spirit, bad things (punishment) happens. No other alternative is possible. We need God's Spirit." So, then, are you suggesting that bad things will only happen when God withdraws is protection? and that it doesn't matter if Satan causes it or not? If so, then why use Satan to mete out punishment? Why leave it up to him to decide how to punish sinners?

4. "I pointed out at least 4 possibilities [ways God destroys sinners], I think. So no, it's not just one. There's more than the 4 I pointed out as well." But of all these ways God destroys sinners which ones does He do Himself (as opposed to indirectly)?

"Of course God isn't powerless. What's your point?" If a sinner decides to commit suicide, for example, is God powerless (doesn't have the right) to intervene? And, is this one of the ways God indirectly destroys sinners (by allowing them to commit suicide)?

5. "I think if all that she wrote about the subject were this one paragraph, I would agree with your conclusion." I'm glad we are able to agree on this point.

"It's true that the destruction did not actually take place right then, but this point is treated in GC chapter 1." If we are going to include actions Jesus took after His sojourn here to demonstrate what God is like, why not include actions before His incarnation? But if we do this, what good is Sister White's comment about Jesus demonstrating what God is like during His earthly sojourn?

Besides, when did Jesus demonstrate, while here, that God's glory is a consuming fire, that it causes things infected with sin to burn up and turn into ashes?

Tom, I'm having a hard time reconciling the following statements made by you:

"God bears no responsibility whatever for evil, other than whatever responsibility attaches to creating beings with free will..."

"God is innocent. He has no responsibility."

What did you mean by "whatever responsibility"?

1. "...the death of the wicked is something which takes place because of *their* initiative." Sinners die the first death because God will not allow them to eat the fruit of the tree of life. The reason for this is because Adam and Eve sinned. So, yes, what they did initiated what God did.

"To suggest that it's the glory of God that destroys the wicked is fine..." So, it is the glory of God's character that causes sinners to die. And they wouldn't die if God continued to veil His glory, right? How can you say, then, that sin causes sinners to die?

2. "This isn't a question I can answer in a sentence or two." From what you've already posted about it, I hear you saying the glory of God reacting with the sin in sinners, in the lake of fire, causes sinners to burn up and turn into ashes with their sins. Before the final judgment, God destroys sinners by withdrawing His protection, by allowing evil angels to decide how to appropriately and justly destroy them.

3."If God didn't do anything, and people died as soon as they sin, which they would if He didn't do anything, no one could be saved." If sin causes sinners to die, why does God need to expose them to His unveiled glory, in the lake of fire, in order to destroy them? Why not simply allow sin to do it?

MM: It sounds like you are saying God punishes sinners by allowing evil angels to destroy them.

God punishes sinners by withdrawing His protection. The form of destruction that follows can vary.

1. What would happen if God never gave evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

They was suffer some other bad consequence. Not all the evil that happens is due to evil angels.

2. What would happen if the evil angels choose not to destroy sinners when God gave them permission?

Same answer.

3. If death is the inevitable result of sinning why, then, does God also give evil angels permission to destroy them? Why not simply allow them to die? Why destroy them first? Isn't allowing them to die good enough?

I don't know what you're talking about here. Are you talking about the final judgment? Or things like plagues? It sounds to me like you're mixing up the two. Permission given to evil angels to destroy has nothing to do with the judgment, but the death that is the inevitable result of sin does. So please clarify what your question is, and what event you're talking about.

1. "... the fact is destroying sinners is contrary to His character..." But I thought you argued earlier that He does indeed destroy sinners by giving evil angels permission to do it.

If you want, I can put in descriptions, such as "actively destroy" and so forth, but just a little common sense should make it easy to follow what I'm saying. God destroys by withdrawing His protection. This is how He pours out His wrath. In this sense, God destroys. However, as Ellen White states, Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. Is Ellen White contradicting herself? No, no more than I am. In one sense she is speaking of what God (or Christ) does actively, and in the other passively.

2. "The timing of the judgment happens at the time of God's choosing ..." But if the relationship between sinning and destruction is based on the principal of reaping and sowing, how can the consequences be delayed?

People reap what they have sown and the judgment. If God did nothing to prevent the effects of sin, we'd all die when we sinned. FW 21 talks about this.

"As EGW puts it, sinners reap that which they have sown. Those who have sinned determine how much destruction." In the cases of sinners who have suffered catastrophic death, like the Antediluvians and the Sodomites, how did their sinful choices cause such radical and devastating destruction? How did eating flesh cause the forces of nature to unleash a flood, or how did licentiousness cause a conflagration?

She's talking about the judgment in DA 764.

"... God decides when to withdraw His spirit, and then Satan does what he wants to do." So, then, Satan decides how to destroy sinners? God leaves it up to Satan to determine what is appropriate?

Sin causes pain, misery and destruction. There is no equity regarding this in this life. The equity is found in the judgment. Sinners are not punished because this is something God wants to have happen to them.

3. "*Any* time God withdraws His Spirit, bad things (punishment) happens. No other alternative is possible. We need God's Spirit." So, then, are you suggesting that bad things will only happen when God withdraws is protection? and that it doesn't matter if Satan causes it or not? If so, then why use Satan to mete out punishment? Why leave it up to him to decide how to punish sinners?

It seems to me you are thinking about this in a fundamentally incorrect way. So your questions don't make sense to me. There's no good way for me to answer them, because they're FOTAP questions (fallacy of the assumed premise). God is not using Satan to mete out punishment. Sinners are punished when they choose to live lives apart from God. It's like drug addicts are punished for their use of drugs by way of the terrible consequences that result from the choices they make.

4. "I pointed out at least 4 possibilities [ways God destroys sinners], I think. So no, it's not just one. There's more than the 4 I pointed out as well." But of all these ways God destroys sinners which ones does He do Himself (as opposed to indirectly)?

"Of course God isn't powerless. What's your point?" If a sinner decides to commit suicide, for example, is God powerless (doesn't have the right) to intervene? And, is this one of the ways God indirectly destroys sinners (by allowing them to commit suicide)?

By "powerless" you meant "doesn't have the right"? If that's what you mean, please be more clear about it. "Powerless" to me means, "doesn't have the power". That's not the same thing as not having the right.

Regarding God and suicide, sometimes God intervenes, sometimes He doesn't. I don't have enough information to say why He does what when. Regarding whether this can be construed as a way God indirectly destroys sinners, we read in Scripture that "God killed Saul," yet Saul committed suicide, so that answers this question in the affirmative.

5. "I think if all that she wrote about the subject were this one paragraph, I would agree with your conclusion." I'm glad we are able to agree on this point.

That paragraph has caused a lot of people difficulty. The same thing can be said about Scripture too. For example, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, today thou shalt be with me in paradice." We can explain about commas and punctuation in the Greek and so forth, but if a person just focuses on that one sentence and refused to compare Scripture with Scripture, there's not much one can do.