Is destruction inevitable by a loving Creator?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

The people who will be lost are those who have trampled through the blood of Jesus Christ and spat in his face at every turn. He has gone out of his way to save them' date=' and they simply refuse to the very end. So how can you even say something like that Lutz?

and then He says in effect, ok now the "turn the other cheek" is repealed... [/quote']

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Yes!! Or let sin go on forever!

did i understand you correctly?

are you saying that

Quote:

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

is only a temporary admonition and not a rule of the universe? a part of God Himself?

[teresaq]

there was a fairly civil discussion going until just a few days ago even with the strong disagreement but now it just looks like an ugly war zone.

some are used to living like that. others are not.

http://www.clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/279159.html#Post279159

[teresaq]

Lutz13, And you are creating your own god, giving him the characteristics you want him to have. Quoting God from scripture is not bringing God down at all.

[Lutz13]

If God actually did destroy the world by the Flood, would it mean to you that He is a "psychotic murderer"?

You know, I don't believe He did. So I'm sure I will ask Him this question if indeed you are right:

Why did you expect the world to follow your laws if you yourself are not able to follow them?

Now I know someone mentioned that "He is God He can do whatever He wants." Wrong! Jesus was a fulfilment of the law. He proved that He doesn't break any of them! If the Lawgiver expects His followers to follow His laws, then He will abide by them Himself. Otherwise His followers will find it ok to break them just as He did.

You can twist the command thou shall not kill all you want. The only innocent man to walk this earth was Jesus and He was murdered. What Israel did was no different than what the crusaders did.

Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever... "...The time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me."(John 16:2-3)

"Live by the sword, die by the sword" "Turn the other cheek" "Love your enemies..."

As for psychotic murderer...Burning people alive and torturing them sounds pretty psychotic to me. Actually it is pretty disgusting, I wonder where they learned to do this to Christians in the dark ages.

[Gail]

Quote:

It's this kind of language that makes me have serious doubts about the explanations coming from those who say God does not destroy.

If God actually did destroy the world by the Flood, would it mean to you that He is a "psychotic murderer"?

If God told you that He destroyed the world by a Flood, and that He destroys the wicked at the end of the 1000 years, could you love and worship Him?

Should God tell me that He didn't do those things, and that He doesn't ever destroy, I would still love and worship Him. I would simply ask Him why the Bible was written as it is, but it wouldn't cause me to question God's character.

Interesting point.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I don't understand why people keep trying to see God as doing what a human might do or think. His ways and thoughts are far beyond what human ways and thoughts are. We can no more understand God than an ant can understand the concept of physics. IMHO

[teresaq]

Quote:

It's this kind of language that makes me have serious doubts about the explanations coming from those who say God does not destroy.

If God actually did destroy the world by the Flood, would it mean to you that He is a "psychotic murderer"?

If God told you that He destroyed the world by a Flood, and that He destroys the wicked at the end of the 1000 years, could you love and worship Him?

Should God tell me that He didn't do those things, and that He doesn't ever destroy, I would still love and worship Him. I would simply ask Him why the Bible was written as it is, but it wouldn't cause me to question God's character.

Interesting point.

[skyblue888]

"Like the Saviour's disciples, John the Baptist did not understand the nature of Christ's kingdom. He expected Jesus to take the throne of David; and as time passed, and the Saviour made no claim to kingly authority, John became perplexed and troubled. He had declared to the people that in order for the way to be prepared before the Lord, the prophecy of Isaiah must be fulfilled; the mountains and hills must be brought low, the crooked made straight, and the rough places plain. He had looked for the high places of human pride and power to be cast down. He had pointed to the Messiah as the One whose fan was in His hand, and who would thoroughly purge His floor, who would gather the wheat into His garner, and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Like the prophet Elijah, in whose spirit and power he had come to Israel, he looked for the Lord to reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire." D.A.215.

Those of us who keep believing and teaching that after the 1000 years God will directly cause fire to come down from Him upon the wicked to annihilate all His enemies are no better than John the Baptist and Elijah who, for most of their lives, believed and taught that the Messiah would reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire. If these two prophets were mistaken, what should we expect from a people who claim to know and possess everything? See 1 S.M.358. When we think we know something it is then that we do not know anything yet as we ought to know it. 1 Cor.8:2.

Both John the Baptist and Elijah had been wrong in their assessment of God's character and therefore could not understand the true nature of His kingdom. They had not correctly understood His character, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin.

There is nothing new under the sun. That which has been is that which shall be. 1 Cor.10:11.

Call me a "fanatic" if you wish but that is the plain declaration of the pen of inspiration.

sky

"The works of Christ not only declared Him to be the Messiah, but showed in what manner His kingdom was to be established. To John was opened the same truth that had come to Elijah in the desert, when "a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire:" and after the fire, God spoke to the prophet by "a still small voice." 1 Kings 19:11, 12. So Jesus was to do His work, not with the clash of arms and the overturning of thrones and kingdoms, but through speaking to the hearts of men by a life of mercy and self-sacrifice." D.A.217.

[Twilight]

"Like the Saviour's disciples, John the Baptist did not understand the nature of Christ's kingdom. He expected Jesus to take the throne of David; and as time passed, and the Saviour made no claim to kingly authority, John became perplexed and troubled. He had declared to the people that in order for the way to be prepared before the Lord, the prophecy of Isaiah must be fulfilled; the mountains and hills must be brought low, the crooked made straight, and the rough places plain. He had looked for the high places of human pride and power to be cast down. He had pointed to the Messiah as the One whose fan was in His hand, and who would thoroughly purge His floor, who would gather the wheat into His garner, and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Like the prophet Elijah, in whose spirit and power he had come to Israel, he looked for the Lord to reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire." D.A.215.

Those of us who keep believing and teaching that after the 1000 years God will directly cause fire to come down from Him upon the wicked to annihilate all His enemies are no better than John the Baptist and Elijah who, for most of their lives, believed and taught that the Messiah would reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire. If these two prophets were mistaken, what should we expect from a people who claim to know and possess everything? See 1 S.M.358. When we think we know something it is then that we do not know anything yet as we ought to know it. 1 Cor.8:2.

Both John the Baptist and Elijah had been wrong in their assessment of God's character and therefore could not understand the true nature of His kingdom. They had not correctly understood His character, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin.

There is nothing new under the sun. That which has been is that which shall be. 1 Cor.10:11.

Call me a "fanatic" if you wish but that is the plain declaration of the pen of inspiration.

sky

"The works of Christ not only declared Him to be the Messiah, but showed in what manner His kingdom was to be established. To John was opened the same truth that had come to Elijah in the desert, when "a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire:" and after the fire, God spoke to the prophet by "a still small voice." 1 Kings 19:11, 12. So Jesus was to do His work, not with the clash of arms and the overturning of thrones and kingdoms, but through speaking to the hearts of men by a life of mercy and self-sacrifice." D.A.217.

To mistake Gods character is possible for all of us Sky.

It is very possible here, that you yourself have become mistaken like John the Baptist and Elijah.

Do you accept that?

Is that possible?

Personally, I allow for the possibility I am mistaken on this subject, however, I need a very clear "thus saith the Lord", for that to be brought home to me.

That has not been the case as we have discussed this subject.

Rather it has been a series of "extrapolations" of principles without one solid clear reference that man destroys Satan.

That has always been the issue.

Where I urge caution, is taking a fixed position from the interpretation of one statement and then trying to make the bible fit that position.

Because that is the activity that leads to fanaticism.

We are to primarily let the bible interpret itself.

If someone cannot show a doctrine with a solid foundation in scripture, using clear unequivocal evidence, then in my view they should not be sharing it as "the truth" and they should not be denouncing others as "spiritually blind" because they cannot see any direct evidence for the view.

Extrapolating a principle is not the same as a "Thus saith the Lord".

God bless,

Mark

[Guest]

In other words, if it does not cause all the other statements to harmonize, then it cannot be the foundation.

[Twilight]

In other words, if it does not cause all the other statements to harmonize, then it cannot be the foundation.

Well said. :-)

[pnattmbtc]

To mistake Gods character is possible for all of us Sky.

It is very possible here, that you yourself have become mistaken like John the Baptist and Elijah.

Do you accept that?

Is that possible?

Personally, I allow for the possibility I am mistaken on this subject, however, I need a very clear "thus saith the Lord", for that to be brought home to me.

That has not been the case as we have discussed this subject.

Rather it has been a series of "extrapolations" of principles without one solid clear reference that man destroys Satan.

I want to differentiate between a couple of ideas. One idea is that it is sin, not God, which causes the destruction of sinners. God will not set people on fire for many hours or days at a time in order to cause them excruciating pain in the name of justice. Such an idea is totally foreign to God's character, and contrary to all that Jesus Christ revealed of the Father. I'm setting these out as ideas that all who believe "God does not destroy" would agree to.

The fundamental difficulty "we" have with this idea is that it presents God to be a way we simply cannot fathom Him to be. In regards to the comment that we need a clear "Thus says the Lord," we have a clear thus says the Lord, and that was Jesus Christ, the whole purpose of whose ministry was the revelation of the Father.

Ok, that's one point. The other is that it isn't necessary to believe that man will kill Satan to be convinced that the above is true. So I'd like to keep these separated. I doubt any two people would have exactly the same conception as to every detail as to what will happen in the judgment. However, there are principles upon which different "camps" may agree. To me, the "dividing line" would be if God will set people on fire to suffer excruciating pain in order to make them pay for what they have done. Trying to accompany this idea with the idea of God that Jesus Christ presented makes my head want to explode.

[pnattmbtc]

Well brothers, you are free to believe what you will. God is saving me from self destruction,(sin dwells in me.)not from Him.

Sin is what is destructive. Before sin the universe was at peace. I refuse to believe that Satan taught God how to be a psychotic murderer. The God I have come to love doesn't use force(death threats is force) like the god of this world does.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

To mistake Gods character is possible for all of us Sky.

It is very possible here, that you yourself have become mistaken like John the Baptist and Elijah.

Do you accept that?

Is that possible?

Personally, I allow for the possibility I am mistaken on this subject, however, I need a very clear "thus saith the Lord", for that to be brought home to me.

That has not been the case as we have discussed this subject.

Rather it has been a series of "extrapolations" of principles without one solid clear reference that man destroys Satan.

I want to differentiate between a couple of ideas. One idea is that it is sin, not God, which causes the destruction of sinners. God will not set people on fire for many hours or days at a time in order to cause them excruciating pain in the name of justice. Such an idea is totally foreign to God's character, and contrary to all that Jesus Christ revealed of the Father. I'm setting these out as ideas that all who believe "God does not destroy" would agree to.

The fundamental difficulty "we" have with this idea is that it presents God to be a way we simply cannot fathom Him to be. In regards to the comment that we need a clear "Thus says the Lord," we have a clear thus says the Lord, and that was Jesus Christ, the whole purpose of whose ministry was the revelation of the Father.

Ok, that's one point. The other is that it isn't necessary to believe that man will kill Satan to be convinced that the above is true. So I'd like to keep these separated. I doubt any two people would have exactly the same conception as to every detail as to what will happen in the judgment. However, there are principles upon which different "camps" may agree. To me, the "dividing line" would be if God will set people on fire to suffer excruciating pain in order to make them pay for what they have done. Trying to accompany this idea with the idea of God that Jesus Christ presented makes my head want to explode.

Indeed, we do not need to agree on every fine point. :-)

But I just do not see the bible expounding one side of the coin.

The destruction of the wicked is a two sided coin in my understanding (which has grown since these discussions).

There is the destruction that comes from mans choices and consequences.

But there is also destruction as jugdement from God.

At this juncture I see no reason that this is not the case.

I can only see this being the case if I view the coin as single sided.

I do not think scripture permits that.

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

It seems to me the following is plainly "single-sided". That is, the judgment of God is the destruction which comes from mans choices and consequences.

Quote:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. 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. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

It seems to me this thought is repeated again and again and again. God gives them existence to develop their character, and when this is accomplished, they receive the results of their choice. Their rebellion so ruins their character, that God's presence is to them a consuming fire. His glory (which is His character of love -- that's the context) destroys them.

Continuing to make this clear is the next paragraph which speaks of how Satan and his followers would perish if God *left* them to reap what they have sown. If God "leaves" them to perish, He can't be *causing* them to perish.

And then it points out the misunderstanding which would have arisen. The misunderstanding looks to me to be precisely the "single-sided" vs. "double-sided" issue you are mentioning. The death of Satan would have been perceived to have been "double-sided" (i.e., God did it, as opposed to being caused by what Satan chose) as opposed to "single-sided."

I like that way of putting it, by the way ("single-sided" vs. "double-sided"). I think that's a nice, clear description.

[Twilight]

It seems to me the following is plainly "single-sided". That is, the judgment of God is the destruction which comes from mans choices and consequences.

Quote:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. 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. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

It seems to me this thought is repeated again and again and again. God gives them existence to develop their character, and when this is accomplished, they receive the results of their choice. Their rebellion so ruins their character, that God's presence is to them a consuming fire. His glory (which is His character of love -- that's the context) destroys them.

Continuing to make this clear is the next paragraph which speaks of how Satan and his followers would perish if God *left* them to reap what they have sown. If God "leaves" them to perish, He can't be *causing* them to perish.

And then it points out the misunderstanding which would have arisen. The misunderstanding looks to me to be precisely the "single-sided" vs. "double-sided" issue you are mentioning. The death of Satan would have been perceived to have been "double-sided" (i.e., God did it, as opposed to being caused by what Satan chose) as opposed to "single-sided."

I like that way of putting it, by the way ("single-sided" vs. "double-sided"). I think that's a nice, clear description.

But I would see the revealing of Gods glory as the second side. :-)

[John317]

God will not set people on fire for many hours or days at a time in order to cause them excruciating pain in the name of justice. Such an idea is totally foreign to God's character, and contrary to all that Jesus Christ revealed of the Father. I'm setting these out as ideas that all who believe "God does not destroy" would agree to.

I see a major problem with this.

First, Ellen White, quoting an angel of God, says clearly that "the saints, in unison with Jesus, sit in judgment, and METE OUT to the wicked according to the deeds done in the body, AND THAT WHICH THEY MUST RECEIVE AT THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS SET OFF AGAINST THEIR NAMES." EW 52, 53. She says this will be the work of the saints with Jesus during the 1000 years. The saints come to this decision about each individual after a close examination of his/her life. The intention, obviously, is that each person receive "according to the deeds done in the body."

Secondly, if the above is not done-- and if the wicked suffer in some way that is completely arbitrary, such as being beaten to death, etc.-- it would mean that many of the unsaved would suffer far more than they deserve. For instance, a woman or child might be murdered by a raging mob by being torn limb from limb when that kind of death would not be "according to the deeds done in the body." On the other hand, someone who was a very evil person might simply blow his own brains out and die quickly and virtually painlessly. Do you see the problem?

If Ellen White-- and the Bible-- are right, the lost will only suffer exactly the punishment they deserve, and no more. However, if people are murdered by humans, many will suffer far more than they deserve, and others would suffer far less than they deserve. This would not be justice. A raging mob of evil people is not interested in justice. Some people there will enjoy giving pain and suffering before they themselves are murdered.

Which would "mete out" justice-- a loving, all-knowing God who sacrificed Himself to save humanity and knows the human heart, and who makes the decision in unison with "the saints," or a mob of wicked men and women inspired by Satan?

Thirdly, if Ellen White does not mean that the amount of suffering by each lost person is decided by saints in unison with Jesus, what does she mean? What is signified by her words in EW 52, 53?

Certainly she does NOT mean that the saints decide that the wicked are lost and will die. For that is already a foregone conclusion at the very beginning of the 1000 years, because the wicked are not in the resurrection of the righteous; and anyone not in the first resurrection is completely lost. Therefore, the only thing left to be determined during the 1000 years-- in order that justice be done--is how much the lost will suffer, or be punished, for their sins.

Fourthly, only God can guarantee that the wicked are punished according to the deeds done in the body. It does no good for the saints with Jesus to decide how much the wicked shall suffer, if their manner of death, and the length and intensity of their suffering, is left up to the wicked themselves. Therefore justice is only fulfilled in the punishment of the wicked if God is the one who destroys the wicked, just as the Bible and Ellen White say He will. As she says, "some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days." GC 673.

I submit that the decision as to who is destroyed quickly and who suffers many days, is determined by the saints in unison with Jesus during the 1000 years. This is the only way to assure that justice is done.

[Guest]

excellent point John

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

God will not set people on fire for many hours or days at a time in order to cause them excruciating pain in the name of justice. Such an idea is totally foreign to God's character, and contrary to all that Jesus Christ revealed of the Father. I'm setting these out as ideas that all who believe "God does not destroy" would agree to.

I see a major problem with this.

First, Ellen White, quoting an angel of God, says clearly that "the saints, in unison Jesus, sit in judgment, and METE OUT to the wicked according to the deeds done in the body, AND THAT WHICH THEY MUST RECEIVE AT THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS SET OFF AGAINST THEIR NAMES." EW 52, 53. She says this will be the work of the saints with Jesus during the 1000 years. The saints come to this decision about each individual after a close examination of his/her life. The intention, obviously, is that each person receive "according to the deeds done in the body."

Secondly, if the above is not done-- and if the wicked suffer in some way that is completely arbitrary, such as being beaten to death, etc.-- it would mean that many of the unsaved would suffer far more than they deserve. For instance, a woman or child might be murdered by a raging mob by being torn limb from limb when that kind of death would not be "according to the deeds done in the body." On the other hand, someone who was a very evil person might simply blow his own brains out and die quickly and virtually painlessly. Do you see the problem?

If Ellen White-- and the Bible-- are right, the lost will only suffer exactly the punishment they deserve, and no more. However, if people are murdered by humans, many will suffer far more than they deserve, and others would suffer far less than they deserve. This would not be justice. A raging mob of evil people is not interested in justice. Some people there will enjoy giving pain and suffering before they themselves are murdered.

Which would "mete out" justice-- a loving, all-knowing God who sacrificed Himself to save humanity and knows the human heart, and who makes the decision in unison with "the saints," or a mob of wicked men and women inspired by Satan?

Thirdly, if Ellen White does not mean that the amount of suffering by each lost person is decided by saints in unison with Jesus, what does she mean? What is signified by her words in EW 52, 53?

Certainly she does NOT mean that the saints decide that the wicked are lost and will die. That is already foregone conclusion at the beginning of the 1000 years, because they are not in the resurrection of the righteous. Therefore, the only thing left to be determined during the 1000 years-- in order that justice be done--is how much the lost will suffer, or be punished, for their sins.

Very good point John.

There would be no justice if any other than God carried out the penalty.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

But I would see the revealing of Gods glory as the second side. :-)

[John317]

I hope sky or anyone who believes the wicked are destroyed by human weapons and by murder, replies to each of the the four points.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

But I would see the revealing of Gods glory as the second side. :-)

God's glory is His character. There's no reason the love of God, or goodness of God, should cause anyone to die. Such is the sinfulness of sin. It so ruins the person that the one "infected" can't stand to be around beings who are good.

Quote:

©ould those whose hearts are filled with hatred of God, of truth and holiness, mingle with the heavenly throng and join their songs of praise? Could they endure the glory of God and the Lamb? No, no; years of probation were granted them, that they might form characters for heaven; but they have never trained the mind to love purity; they have never learned the language of heaven, and now it is too late. A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them.(GC 543)

Rather like those in Revelation who cry for the rocks to fall on them, so horrible is to look into Jesus' face.

It seems to me that Gods Glory has a physical manifestation in the universe.

Not only visible, but physical.

We have to consider all the statements about Gods Glory.

Consider this:

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29). In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them.--DA 107 (1898). {LDE 279.1}

This is my understanding:

Sin cannot stand in the presence of love, pure Holy love, it is destroyed.

A spiritual destruction.

But also a physical destruction.

This is what the SOP states.

So again, we must not label the "glory of God" with one statement.

But must compare many.

Mark :-)

[John317]

There would be no justice if any other than God carried out the penalty.

This is particularly true in the light of the following argument:

Only God can guarantee that the wicked are punished according to the deeds done in the body. It does no good for the saints with Jesus to decide how much the wicked shall suffer, if their manner of death, and the length and intensity of their suffering, is left up to the wicked themselves. Therefore justice is only fulfilled in the punishment of the wicked if God is the one who destroys the wicked, just as the Bible and Ellen White say He will. As she says, "some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days." GC 673.

I submit that the decision as to who is destroyed quickly and who suffers many days, is determined by the saints in unison with Jesus during the 1000 years. This is the only way to assure that justice is done.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

There would be no justice if any other than God carried out the penalty.

This is particularly true in the light of the following argument:

Only God can guarantee that the wicked are punished according to the deeds done in the body. It does no good for the saints with Jesus to decide how much the wicked shall suffer, if their manner of death, and the length and intensity of their suffering, is left up to the wicked themselves. Therefore justice is only fulfilled in the punishment of the wicked if God is the one who destroys the wicked, just as the Bible and Ellen White say He will. As she says, "some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days." GC 673.

I submit that the decision as to who is destroyed quickly and who suffers many days, is determined by the saints in unison with Jesus during the 1000 years. This is the only way to assure that justice is done.

Totally agree with this John.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

Me:God will not set people on fire for many hours or days at a time in order to cause them excruciating pain in the name of justice. Such an idea is totally foreign to God's character, and contrary to all that Jesus Christ revealed of the Father. I'm setting these out as ideas that all who believe "God does not destroy" would agree to.

J:I see a major problem with this.

First, Ellen White, quoting an angel of God, says clearly that "the saints, in unison Jesus, sit in judgment, and METE OUT to the wicked according to the deeds done in the body, AND THAT WHICH THEY MUST RECEIVE AT THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS SET OFF AGAINST THEIR NAMES." EW 52, 53.