OK, explain what Ellen White has written in GC 660-667 and EW 290-291, 52-53, in the light of what you say here about "tradition and misinterpretation." That would mean that Ellen White and the Bible itself are part of the reason the truth is obscured-- but of course that doesn't make sense.

You've given very general explantions of these passages before from your viewpoint, but you don't go into specifics. Please show what those passages say and explain your reasoning as you read them. Start with Ellen White's words that Jesus and the righteous "decide every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then they mete out to the wicked the portion they MUST suffer, according to their works." It doesn't say Jesus decides to allow them to suffer whatever amount they WILL suffer. It says He determines how much they MUST suffer by a careful consideration of their deeds.

That decision is done during the 1000 years, while the wicked are still dead. What is the relationship between the study of the lives of the wicked and the decision of Christ and the righteous? She says they "decide" and "mete out" that decision. Elsewhere she says Jesus will "see that the wicked receive" the punishment that is due them for their evil deeds. Can you show how you harmonize this with your beliefs?

OK, sure, but does that mean we should not talk to other Seventh-day Adventists and particularly with teachers and leaders? How about Robert Olson? He taught the class I took in the Spirit of prophecy just before he went to the Ellen White Estate and became the secretary there. Why would I not want to know his opinion on the writings of Ellen White? And why not James Nix? I used to talk to him often when he was at the Ellen White Estate here in Loma Linda, before he went back to Maryland. Why would I not want to talk to him about these matters?

Ellen White never said that we should be suspicious of each other as SDAs. In fact she said we need to draw closer together, not create distance and disunity.



Sure, but what does that have to do with James Nix and the other staff at the Ellen White Estate? Do you have reason to believe they are part of the group you mention here?

Remember that Ellen White also said that we should submit our "new light" to the leadership and see what they think, and if they see no light in what we think, we should "yield to their judgment." See 5 T 293.

Have you done this? Have others who taught these things done this? If not, would you be willing to follow the counsel of Sister White?

Could you please give a reference for this quote?

Here's the same statement in another quote by the same writer:

"The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God.... Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony. THERE WILL BE A HATRED KINDLED AGAINST THE TESTIMONIES WHICH IS SATANIC." 1 SM 48

Here it is from the original letter where she wrote it:

The Last Deception of Satan

Satan is ... constantly pressing in the spurious—to lead away from the truth. The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God’s remnant people in the true testimony.—Letter 12, 1890.

There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them, for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the Spirit of God are heeded.—Letter 40, 1890.

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

A thought to consider:

What better way to unsettle faith in the Bible and in the testimonies than to teach that we can't depend on what they say because they mean just the opposite of their plainest statements?

Reposting this for John317:

Reposting for John317.




I'm asking specifically about the idea that God will set people on fire to suffer excruciating pain while being burned alive, something Ellen White describes as being made to "suffer torture." I'm asking specifically about this. Not about destroying the wicked in general, nor even destroying the wicked by fire (if this were to happen in a moment, as fire normally works, that would be a different question; it would certainly be more merciful than the idea that God has people burning literally on fire for days like a torch).



This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm asking. I'm asking about your concept of God's character, your sense of morality, why these personal values you hold allow you to believe that God will set people on fire for days.




This is just a question of might. I'm asking about character.

I appreciate that you took the time to write a lengthy post, but you didn't answer my question. It's hard for me to believe I'm not being clear.

I'm not asking you what you think the Bible or the SOP teaches. You cannot answer my question by citing texts.

Again, this is a personal question, which has to do with your view of morality, your view of God's character. I'm asking you why you think it's moral to set people on fire to burn for days. I'm asking you why you think God would be capable of doing this.

Setting people on fire, torturing people, is something not ordinarily considered acceptable behavior. No earthly government, no matter how corrupt, allows for punishing criminals in such a manner. A government might torture someone in order to gain information, such as to prevent a terrorist attack or some other perceived threat against itself, but not as a way of punishing criminals.

I can't think of a more inhumane manner of punishment than what you believe. Can you? Why not do something like we do in this country. Put people in prison to set out a sentence for some amount of time which corresponds to their crime. Why burn people?

It doesn't seem like you're thinking about what really happens, according to your thinking. You're suggesting that God sets people on fire, to burn like a torch, right? Now fire would kill a person in a few seconds. The only way they could continue to burn would be for God to supernaturally prevent them from dying, so they continue to be tortured, because, clearly, if they die, the torture ceases.

Also fire would quickly destroy the nerve endings. So God would have to supernaturally act to prevent the nerve endings from being destroyed.

So we have a person set on fire, burning like a Molotov cocktail, with God acting supernaturally to prevent the person from dying, or from the nerve endings from being damaged, so this fire has no purpose other than to cause the person being burned to suffer excruciating pain.

So we have God inflicting the worst torture in the history of man to those who refuse to obey Him. And supposedly this is "justice."

And all the while, while asserting this, you deny that God uses compelling power to coerce the will. This could only be true of a person without rudimentary reason powers.

1.God tells me to obey Him.
2.If I don't, He will set me on fire to burn for days.
3.I better obey Him if I don't wish to be tortured for days.

This isn't hard to follow, is it? I think most people are capable of reasoning like this. I think any reasonable person would see that threatening to torture someone by setting them on fire for days is forcing the will.

But this is a side note to my original question, although I have been asking this too, so might as well include it.

So I'm asking two things:

1.Why do you think God's character is such that He is capable of torturing people for days if they don't obey Him?
2.Why do you think God's threatening to set people on fire to burn for days if they don't do what He says is not forcing the will?
_________________________
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.

There's a big difference between these two teachings, sky.

One difference is that Jesus Christ himself taught in the plainest, clearest terms that the wicked will be destroyed in fire where they will suffer varying lengths of time or verying degrees of pain.

What happens is that people say, "OK sure, Jesus said it, but He can't mean it." So they make Jesus a liar or someone who merely says things in order to frighten people. Thus they make Jesus and the Scriptures a lie. Remember that Jesus said these things not only in parables but without parables. See Luke 12: 5, 6.

Also, we have direct statements of Ellen White that the wicked are made to suffer according to their deeds. She says that Jesus Himself in unity with the righteous in heaven during the 1000 years "decide" the portion the wicked MUST suffer.

Ellen White also makes many statements that show the great Creator God has a right to punish the wicked as He sees fit and that humans don't have to right to question God, "Why are you doing this"? SG vol. 4, p. 50, 51.

You must see the rebellious attitude of Robert and others who are faced with the evidence that they are wrong and that God will do exactly what He has said He will do. That is the kind of attitude that is encouraged by the idea that people have a right to reject God if He does not handle these issues just as they think He should. They learn to consider it right for them to say such things as that they couldn't love and worship a God who would burn up the devil and his wicked followers.

I do not think that way at all. If He chose not to destroy the wicked at all, ever, that would be fine with me-- as long as He did what He knows is best for the whole universe. I trust him implicitly. He has proved in the past that He is completely trustworthy. I would simply want to know why the Bible was written so that it appeared clearly to teach that God would destroy the wicked in fire. But I would not think or tell God that He has no right to destroy the wicked with fire just as the Bible says He will.

I do not believe that the Bible portrays God as being evil just because He destroyed the world in a flood or destroyed Sodom or that He will destroy the wicked in fire. God has a perfect right to do those things. Read again SG vol. 4, p. 50, 51. "God has unlimited control over the works of His hands, and man has no right to ask Him, 'Why doest thou thus?'" Does that only mean that God as unlimited control as long as criminals and sinners agree with Him? No. Unlimited control is unlimited control.

It doesn't mean God has "unlimited control over the work of His hands" as long as sinful humans agree with Him. That is what it seems to me you are saying. It seems to me you are willing to grant him control as long as He does what you judge to be right; and what is right for you is for God to be completely passive in the destruction of sin and sinners, allowing sinners to determine how and when they and other sinners die.



Sure, I agree that God doesn't cause people to be lost by making them believe something that's in error. But there's a big and important difference between the statement in 2 Thess. 2: 10, 11 and the one found in Rev. 20. The main difference is this: We have Bible reasons for knowing that God does not directly make people believe lies, but we have good reasons to believe the Bible teaches God will destroy the wicked by burning them up in real fire. The Bible says is many times, such as in Isaiah, Malachi, and the Gospels. Ellen White also says it over and over again, and it is not in symbolic language.

Another difference is that nowhere does Ellen White or the Bible deny that God will destroy the wicked in fire, whereas they both deny that God would directly cause people to believe lies.

A third point I think you should consider is that when God finally destroys the wicked, it occurs after the close of probation, when the wicked have completely made up their minds to continue following the devil. The Bible shows that God has a right to judge sin and those who are unrepentant. In fact, He must do so as a just God and a just Judge of the universe. I am not saying He must-- it is the Bible which says He must do so. That is one reason the Bible says the wicked are repaid for the things they've done, and Ellen White says Jesus "metes out to the wicked the portion which they MUST suffer, according to the deeds done in the flesh."

Good and important quotes. Makes the point clear as glass. Look what the angel of God said to Ellen White: "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon."

How can people dare to say the angel's words are a lie? It obviously means that God and Christ are in complete control of how long the wicked suffer, just as Ellen White says in EW 50-53.

I've been trying for weeks to carry on a conversation with you regarding certain points. You keep going off on tangents. You start new topics out of the blue, and when I oblige, and try to answer your points, you stop that conversation and open up some new thing, and never get back to the other. For example, on the subject of foreknowledge, I presented a number of texts, you thanked me for bringing them up to you, said you would look at them and respond, and I never heard another word.

I've reposted a second time a couple of posts that I'm interested in your opinion on. I am interested in what you think, and I'm trying to understand it. I can't do that if you won't answer the questions I'm asking.

I don't think it's unreasonable for you to talk to anyone you want to. I do think it's odd that you would ask me what I think someone whom I don't know would think.

I reposted the posts I mentioned again for your convenience.

Regarding DA 764, you stated that I am misunderstanding the word "arbitrary." I've explained in detail several times why "arbitrary" in context is in accordance with the primary definition of the word per Websters, and not the idea you're suggesting. If you wish to discuss DA 764, it seems to me that's the way to go (i.e., respond to the points I made).

It's clear to me that DA 764 and GC 673 are dealing with the same subject. I don't see how it would change anything if my "simple explanation" was the case or not. Do you? That is, let's assume I'm wrong, and DA 764 isn't explaining the same vision as GC 673, that there's actually two different visions involved. So what? They're both clearly dealing with the same subject. DA 764 is clearly explaining the principles involved in the destruction of the wicked, and doing so in the context of what Christ accomplished at the cross. That's what matters.

Very few people believe, percentage wise, that Jesus taught that people will be set on fire to burn alive to pay for their sins for from many hours to many days. This certainly isn't stated by Jesus "in the plainest, clearest terms."

On the other hand, Jesus did say in the plainest, clearest terms "when you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." Jesus did present a plain, clear picture of God's character, and it's not a character which sets people on fire to make them suffer torture as punishment for disobeying Him.



Nobody says this. Can you quote anyone?



Or this. Nobody says this either. Or can you quote anyone here either?

This just looks like you saying if they disagree with you, then they make Jesus a liar. This is an absolutely pointless comment. Anyone can say this.



But it's not just God destroying the wicked by burning them up in real fire that you believe. You believe He will set them on fire, and supernaturally keep them alive, so they can be made to "suffer torture" for up to many days. Somehow you find Bible reasons for rejecting the idea that God would directly make people believe lies, but not that God would directly make people suffer torture.



In explaining Malachi 4, Ellen White explains:



This is clearly not literal fire.



Ellen White does deny that God will cause people to suffer torture. At least, GC 535 and surrounding sure makes it appear she finds fault with this idea. There are many who perceive from the Bible as well that God's character is such that He wouldn't torture people.



But not to cause people to suffer torture.



God can be a just God without torturing people. It's possible for justice to exist without torture.



The Bible nowhere says that God must torture people.



She surely didn't mean by this that the wicked must be made to suffer torture. Even if it were true that some arbitrary means had to be set up to punish people, certainly someone as intelligent as God could devise some less inhumane means than setting them on fire and burning them alive.

You are evidently only concerned about the wicked. What about the fact that those people have committed the sin of rebellion agianst God and His government?

Yes, I do believe that God not only could but will destroy the wicked in fire and that "the portion they must suffer" is decided by Jesus Christ in unison with the saints in heaven during the 1000 years. You seem to have a lop-sided view of the love of God, as if God is some sentimental old man who only thinks about how the fire will hurt the wicked. Well, you are wrong. The wicked deserve exactly what they get. Ellen White says herself that Jesus comes to "see that the wicked receive their rewards according to what they have done." "He sees that they receive their rewards..." In other words, if Christ didn't see to it, it wouldn't happen. If I say I am going to the school to see that a teacher does a certain thing, it wouldn't make sense if the teacher could be expected to do it anyway. And you can be sure that Ellen White would not say that Jesus is coming in order to "see that" the wicked receive their rewards according to their works if they would receive those rewards whether he came or not. Jesus studies the lives of the wicked in order to decide the portion they MUST suffer, and then He comes to see that they receive that same portion that they must suffer. She doesn't say Christ comes to see if they suffer the punishment but rather she says He comes for the purpose of making sure they suffer what their evil works deserve.

Does that make Jesus like the devil? No. But you may see it that way. Ellen White writes about people who make such claims--that God's punishment of the wicked make Him look like the Devil. See what she says in ST Jan. 6, 1881; also see 12 MR 207-209. There the servant of the Lord says, "... leave to the Lord to deal with the work of His hands according to His own wise purposes... It is those who have not a keen sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin and are ready to question the justice of God in punishing with such severity the sins of the Amalekites, Canaanites, and Midianites. Those who love sin are unable to comprehend God's dealing with His subjects..." See that entire article.

She also wrote, "SOME ARE DESTROYED AS IN A MOMENT, WHILE OTHERS SUFFER MANY DAYS. ALL ARE PUNISHED 'ACCORDING TO THEIR DEEDS.'... SATAN'S PUNISHMENT IS TO BE FAR GREATER THAN THAT OF THOSE WHOM HE HAS DECEIVED. AFTER ALL HAVE PERISHED WHO FELL BY HIS DECEPTIONS, HE IS STILL TO LIVE AND SUFER ON... THE FULL PENALTY OF THE LAW HAS BEEN VISITED; THE DEMANDS OF JUSTICE HAVE BEEN MET; AND HEAVEN AND EARTH, BEHOLDING, DECLARE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF JEHOVAH." GC 673

You obviously don't like those words, but you need to, because they are the truth of God, which the messenger of the Lord wrote in plain !9th century English. I didn't make up the idea that the wicked will suffer for days; the prophet of God herself wrote those words. She is following the Bible's teachings.

Do you think that's symbolic language? Upon what basis would you have grounds for understanding them symbolically?


Remember that Ellen White said that we are not to judge God by what we humans would do. Would I burn up all the wicked in fire? No, but I am not the righteous, holy, Judge of the whole universe. God can do infinite justice in ways that I could not do. It would be murder if I did it. God can do it, and will do it, in strict justice. He made the laws of the universe and He made humans. He has unlimited control of what He does and how He shall punish the wicked. Man has no right to ask God, "Why are you doing this?" Read SG, vol. 4,, page 50. I didn't say those words-- Ellen White did. Read them in 12 MR 207-209 and SG, vol. 4,, page 50.

Fundamentally, I think your problem here is that you forget what the Bible teaches about the justice of God. The Bible speaks of the retributive justice of God. It speaks of the punishment of the wicked-- not merely that they die the second death but that they suffer for their sins. You know that God is love, but you seem not to realize that along with that love also goes justice and righteousness and holiness. He hates sin and love righteousness. As Ellen White herself says, "... God is merciful and compassionate, but He is also just." ST, Jan. 6, 1881.

So at the end of the 1000 years, He is out to destroy sin and Satan and all who have determined to rebel against Him and follow the devil. From the biblical viewpoint, God wouldn't be a God of love if He didn't totally destroy sin and make all unrepentant sinners pay for their wicked works. He does it in order to secure the universe forever against sin. He does it just like a mother wouldn't be a loving mother if she allowed a rabied dog to go on living and biting and chewing on her baby's face. And God loves His people much more than any mother ever loved her baby.

"The men who promptly and speedily executed the divine judgments upon those heathen nations [whom God commanded Israel to annihilate] have been pronounced harsh and unmerciful in destroying so many human lives. But all who reason thus, fail to understand the character and dealings of God." Again, read the entire article in the Signs of the Times, Jan. 6, 1881.

Notice in the above that Ellen White says as plain as day that God had the Israelites "execute divine judgments" by "destroying so many human lives." If you think that's harsh and unmerciful or wrong, Ellen White says you fail to understand the character and dealings of God.

Do you think Ellen White had any problem with the concept that God literally commanded the Israelites to destroy many human lives, including mothers and babies. Was that harsh? If you think so, she says you don't understand the character and dealings of God.

Will you accept Ellen White's words or will you do like some others and reject them because they are contrary to their favorite ideas? You decide. I already have. She's absolutely right. No question about it.

Let me know, please, if you need me to clarify any point. I'll be glad to do it. Truly. :-)