Who is in charge of the Lake of Fire??

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Your idea is that the glory of God will cause spontaneous combustion upon the wicked? I'm trying to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. When the wicked come into the presence of God, they will erupt in flames. This is what you're saying?[/quote']

I believe such verses as Exodus 19: 18-22 and Lev. 10: 1,2 give us an indication of what will happen to the wicked in Rev. 20: 9. If the Lord hadn't protected the people at Sinai, the text says that many of them would have perished. There's no protection of the wicked at the end. They are exposed to the full glory of God. See PP 303, 304, 359-362.

"He who is to the transgressors of His law a devouring fire, is to His people a safe pavilion." GC 654. (This is in the context of the Second Coming.)

At the Second Coming, "the wicked are blotted from the face of the whole earth-- consumed with the spirit of His mouth and destroyed by the brightness of His glory." GC 657. (Notice it is not Satan who destroys the wicked.)

Before Christ returns and blots the wicked from the face of the whole earth, God has already blotted their names out of the Book of Life. The wicked are ultimately responsible for their destruction by their own choices throughout life. They have made themselves unfit to inhabit heaven and the new earth, where only righteousness will dwell. 2 Peter 3: 10-13.

Compare carefully GC 672-673. The wicked are burned up in fire that has its source from God. They become ashes under the feet of the righteous. See Mal. 4: 1,3; Is. 66: 24.

Does this mean "yes"? Or no?

[Ted Oplinger]

I agree that the fire is real in every case but that fire does not come directly out from the Lord upon the sinner even if the language seems to indicate that it does.

[Guest]

Amen Ted, you said a mouthfull.

[BobRyan]

I agree that the fire is real in every case but that fire does not come directly out from the Lord upon the sinner even if the language seems to indicate that it does. The only way it can be understood that the fire comes from God out of heaven is that the Lord does not prevent that fire from falling upon the wicked. He does not interpose. "I was shown that God's judgments would not come directly out from the Lord upon them but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection." MR 14, 3.1.

Let's say for the sake of argument - that after God raises the wicked to life -- Satan, his angels and all the resurrected wicked work feverishly to create a massive catastrophic meteor field aimed directly at themselves. They then surround the city and announce to God that in a few moments they will rain down fire and brimstone upon themselves as a final act of revenge on God for not including them in heaven. They have ingeniously decided to stand in certain "spots" so that those who get struck will just so happen to suffer in proportion to the sins they have committed -- with Satan suffering many days longer than all the other sinners - even among the fallen angels.

Then God produces the Great White Throne judgment - showing them how they have made silly decision after silly decision all of their lives -- culminating in this last silly decision to rain down fire and brimstone on themselves. God of course "does not interfere" with this -- their last act of silliness. Even though he knows that it will result in their destroying themselves - right after He has gone through all the trouble to cause them to be resurrected and talk to them.

======================

That nice piece of fiction is how the GC and Rev 20 and Matt 10:28, and Rev 14:10 texts on the lake of fire would have been written if any part of it were true.

It is instructive then - that we find nothing of the sort there.

I think that point is hard to ignore.

in Christ,

Bob

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

I agree that the fire is real in every case but that fire does not come directly out from the Lord upon the sinner even if the language seems to indicate that it does.

Umm...Sky, what kind of double-talk is that? I'm kind of under the strong impression if a language indicates it is so, then it is so.

Both the English and the Greek state the fire descends from heaven - meaning God has control of it. Though I haven't done this yet, I think my software can cross link the Latin and Spanish into that text, and it will come up with the same translation.

Saying it "descends from heaven, but not from God" won't be a good answer, as the context of Revelation 20-22 puts God in the actively descending to New Jerusalem's proximity the whole time. God that close to earth, and can't stop the fire from dropping out of heaven?

That would put God guilty of negligent homicide on a massive scale, Sky.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

The only way it can be understood that the fire comes from God out of heaven is that the Lord does not prevent that fire from falling upon the wicked. He does not interpose. "I was shown that God's judgments would not come directly out from the Lord upon them but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection." MR 14, 3.1.

The sinners place themselves beyond the circle of God's protection.

Sinners who remove themselves from God's protection necessarily place themselves directly in the path of God's wrath. God isn't a dithering Creator who simply says of Divine punishment, "Ooops! They got in the way! I guess I need to be more careful next time!"

I ponder about all of what God could be attributed with...the Flood; Sodom and Gomorrha; Pharaoh and his chariots; Israel a few times in the wilderness; Samuel before king Agag; the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem...the list is by no means exhaustive. In each case, God could be "humanly charged" with either negligent homicide, manslaughter, or contract murder. But He can't be charged, because there is already ample evidence against these accusations Satan would bring.

In the courts and arguments in heaven, every legal implication has been, and is being weighed. Here on earth, we do make charges of negligent crimes and torts for allowing things to happen that we should ordinarily prevent from happening to others. I can be certain these exact same concerns have been, and are being, weighed in heaven now with respect to what God must do concerning the elimination of sin from Creation. God is patient, and willing to allow all the evidence to come in.

I believe the final evidence will be found at the Great White Throne scene - the last and final safety net. With Satan's deception fully unmasked, their sin declared in all of its malignant evil, and the Cross upheld and exalted as the propitiation for all sin...and what do the wicked do, when faced with the choice between accepting God's benevolent sovereignty and eternal death? They choose to get up off the knees after declaring Christ to be the Lawful Sovereign of Creation, and attack the Holy City in the attempt to tear Christ down from His throne!

Only then will all Created Intelligences understand why God must do as He must.

I do believe in the end, God will destroy sin and all who identify with it - and no one will question it, as God has allowed the issue to be thoroughly and exhaustively examined from every angle. All will finally understand why God must do this act of "UnCreation" - so strange for Him, as He has always - and will always be forever after - the Creator.

and what do the wicked do, when faced with the choice between accepting God's benevolent sovereignty and eternal death? They choose to get up off the knees after declaring Christ to be the Lawful Sovereign of Creation, and attack the Holy City in the attempt to tear Christ down from His throne!

_____________________________________________________________________

You got your facts wrong brother. After they all declare that God's ways are righteous they get off their knees yes but not to attack the city but to turn upon Satan and his evil angels with the fury of demons.

When they are coming to attack the City Jesus appears standing upon the walls of the City and the multitudes of the wicked are arrested. Then they are shown in panoramic view the whole plan of salvation. Then they bow down and acknowledge that God is righteous in all his ways. Even Satan will bow down to acknowledge the same. Then the wicked get off their feet and they turn upon Satan to bring him down into the Pit.

"I agree that the fire is real in every case but that fire does not come directly out from the Lord upon the sinner even if the language seems to indicate that it does.

Umm...Sky, what kind of double-talk is that? I'm kind of under the strong impression if a language indicates it is so, then it is so.

No double-talking here. God has shown to us through the prophet that His judgments do not come directly out from Him upon the wicked but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection.

Is that clear?

Who will dare accuse God of double-talk?

sky

[BobRyan]

Let's say for the sake of argument - that after God raises the wicked to life -- Satan, his angels and all the resurrected wicked work feverishly to create a massive catastrophic meteor field aimed directly at themselves. They then surround the city and announce to God that in a few moments they will rain down fire and brimstone upon themselves as a final act of revenge on God for not including them in heaven. They have ingeniously decided to stand in certain "spots" so that those who get struck will just so happen to suffer in proportion to the sins they have committed -- with Satan suffering many days longer than all the other sinners - even among the fallen angels.

Then God produces the Great White Throne judgment - showing them how they have made silly decision after silly decision all of their lives -- culminating in this last silly decision to rain down fire and brimstone on themselves. God of course "does not interfere" with this -- their last act of silliness. Even though he knows that it will result in their destroying themselves - right after He has gone through all the trouble to cause them to be resurrected and talk to them.

======================

That nice piece of fiction is how the GC and Rev 20 and Matt 10:28, and Rev 14:10 texts on the lake of fire would have been written if any part of it were true.

It is instructive then - that we find nothing of the sort there.

I think that point is hard to ignore.

in Christ,

Bob

[skyblue888]

Interesting but this is mere human speculation.

The Lord has already revealed to us from Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 and G.C.672 what is going to take place.

So there is no need to speculate here.

This has already been covered time and time again in the last few weeks.

sky

[Guest]

Keep right on ignoring the truth sky. What's that about one ray of light?

[skyblue888]

There are more than just one ray of light in the references mentioned above. And as far as I know you and others have not only disregarded these precious rays of light from Heaven but you have been questioning and criticizing each one of them.

"It is dangerous to utter a word of doubt, dangerous to question and criticize divine light." D.A.323.

sky

[Guest]

It is you that I doubt, not the SOP, or the Bible, but this new path you have gone off on.

[skyblue888]

Is it me who is saying this or the Holy Spirit?

"God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression." G.C.36.

Is it me or the Holy Spirit?

[Woody]

Quote:

Umm...Sky, what kind of double-talk is that?

I have to agree with you Ted.

[Guest]

It is you who has taken it out of context. This is how it is before probation closes, not after. Read the whole thing.

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. {GC 36.1}

[Woody]

Who you b talkin' to?

[Guest]

You know who I be talkin to.

[Woody]

Spell it out man.

[Guest]

s-k-y

[pnattmbtc]

It is you who has taken it out of context. This is how it is before probation closes, not after. Read the whole thing.

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. {GC 36.1}

[Guest]

Your quote dosn't say any of the things you are putting forth. Where does it say Satan destroys himself? Where does it say he destoys anybody?

[pnattmbtc]

The point of the quote was to bring out that the contention that the previous statement in GC 36 was out of context was false. Here is some of GC 36 previous to the quote I produced which shows that EGW did have in mind the time after probation:

Quote:

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty.

This is the paragraph immediately preceding the one I quoted above. Note:

1.When men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed.

2.God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.

3.The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner.

4.The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy.

She then makes the statement saying that these things had another fulfillment in the time after probation closes.

Regarding your assertion in regards to things I've put forth, please quote something I've said. In the context of this present discussion, the things being put forth are the things said in GC Chapter 1.

[Guest]

Your statements are common knowledge among SDAs, but none of them adresses the crux of the matter at hand, which is how does it actually end? You have put forth that the destruction does not come from God.

[pnattmbtc]

Richard, GC 36 was quoted, and it was argued that this was taken out of context, that the quote being stated was not applying to the time after probation. So I showed that this assertion was incorrect.

If you have some question about things I've been "putting forth," please quote something I've said. I don't recognize in the things you say I've been "putting forth" things I've actually said.

Specifically, regarding your assertion that, "You have put forth that the destruction does not come from God," it's been pointed out several times that this characterization is incorrect. If you presented the idea as "God does not violently destroy," that would be agreed to.

The question is not "Does God destroy?," but "How does God destroy?" Does He do so according to the principles of force and violence, or by the principles of love and truth?

[Guest]

Ok, then there is some disagreement between you, sky, and Lutz.

[pnattmbtc]

No, Richard. You're opposing something that's not being said. On another thread, we had this conversation:

Quote:

Richard, I'm pretty sure that everyone here who posts on the side of the issue that God does not destroy by using force and violence would agree that God destroys. The question is how does God destroy. I'm pretty sure Lutz and Sky have said this, and I'm also quite sure that APL would agree with this as well. (Sorry if I missed someone).

You replied:

Quote:

No, that is not true. sky dosn't even believe God caused the flood, or Sodom and Gomorrah. He has taken another man's teaching on this instead.

To which I said:

Quote:

I'm quite sure what I said is true, Richard. Sky would agree completely with the concept that we should ask, "God does destroy, but how?"

You replied:

Quote:

sky dosn't even believe God caused the flood, or Sodom and Gomorrah.

I said:

Quote:

God can destroy without having to directly cause things to happen Himself. That's the point.

sky agreed with me, saying:

Quote:

Exactly. That is the point. It is the Lord Himself who says that His judgments do not come direclty out from Him upon the sinner.

It's been pointed out several times that what is being asserted (that God does not destroy) is not what's being said, and my assertion that there is agreement on this point was agreed to. So I'm a bit perplexed both as to why something which has been denied is continuing to be asserted, and why you would think that there's disagreement on this point, when that's been explained too.

[Guest]

Now I know for a fact that lutz dosn't believe God has ever destroyed anything. And sky did a whole thread about how God didn't really send the flood, even though the Bible and EGW both say he did.

So what have I missed, did you all unite on some common belief?