That is not talking about the final destruction of the wicked. It is saying that people destroy themselves through their choices. We all know that. That is like saying about an executed criminal that he destroyed himself before the state took him to the gallows.



That is the same as the COL 84. You have to read it in context and read other statements by Ellen White on the same subject. For instance, "God will destroy the sinner from off the earth" PP 110. Or: "The wicked he will destroy... God executes justice upon the wicked" GC 541.

In the above quote-- 5 T 120-- the rest of the statement is that "the sinner destroys himself." But she is obviously not saying the sinner burns himself up. Therefore, the statement in context is not referring to how the wicked die the second death. It is saying that the wicked are responsible for their own destruction, just like a criminal destroys himself long before the state executes him.



This again is not about how the wicked die the second death. It is saying that God does not stand over man today, threatening to make a decree as an executioner; but the sinner himself is responsible for his own decisions as to what seeds he will sow and reap. She also says, "If we will not accept His grace, what more can He do? We have desroyed ourselves by our determined rejection of His love." SC 34.



That is of the same nature as the others, just like the quote in SC 34, quoted above. It is not talking about the final destruction of the wicked.



Same as before. It is not talking about the final destruction of the wicked but of the destruction that comes as a result of God's permitting Satan to work his will. Just before the Second Coming, God will allow Satan freedom to do what He wants with the wicked.



Again, it is not talking about the final destruction of the wicked. It is talking about God's permissive will in allowing Satan to work his will upon the wicked. Ellen White wrie a great deal about this, and the Bible as well.



The above is not talking about the final destruction of the wicked but of the reason Christ came to this earth. He came to save sinners, not destroy them. That is well known and well recongized by everyone.

That quote from DA 487 is not saying God possesses the "spirit of Satan" when He destroys the wicked or when He destroyed the world with a flood. It is not even talking about God but about people who would destroy others simply because they refuse to listen to them or believe what they say. IT IS NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT GOD. If you want to hear what she says about God, please read SG. vol. 4, page 50, 51. It has already been quoted.

Part of it says, "The Lord is regarded as cruel by many in requiring his people to make war with other nations. They say it is contrary to his benevolent character. But he who made the world and formed man to dwell upon the earth, has unlimited right to do as he pleases, and what he pleases with the work of his hands. Man has no right to say to his Maker, Why dost thou thus? There is no injustice in his character. He is the Ruler of the world, and a large portion of his subjects have rebelled against his authority, and have trampled upon his law... God has borne with them [the wicked] until they filled up the mesure of their iniquity, and then he has brought upon them swift destruction. He has used his people as instruments of his wrath, to punish wicked nations, who hae vexed them, and seduced them into idolatry."

The above is in the context of God commanding the Israelites to annihilate the wicked nations that lived in Palestine at the time the Israel caem to the Promised Land. She is saying God was right to have those people destroyed. Why? Because they have "rebelled against his authority, and have trampeld upon his law." This is certainly showing that God is not evil like the devil when he destroys the wicked for rebelling against God. After all, when Satan rebelled against God, he was expelled from heaven; and when Adam rebelled, he was driven out of Eden. Does that make God like Satan? Of course not. Therefore it is clear that DA 487 is not saying God is like Satan for punishing sinners with destruction at the end of the world.



This is saying that unlike Satan, God does not use force to win His cause, or to defeat sin and Satan in the great controversy. God won the great controversy through the cross of Christ, through love, not by forcing people to accept Him. It is not saying God didn't force the wicked angels out of heaven or Adam out of Eden. Those things didn't overcome the rebellion of Satan. All God did was transfer the war to the earth and keep Adam from gaining access to the Tree of Life.



This is saying the same thing as said in your previous quote, in DA 759. The context is the coming of Christ to the world to show God's character in contrast to the character of Satan. It is saying that God would not force the world to believe in Him or accept Him. It obviously has nothing to do with final destruction of the wicked. The destruction takes place AFTER the whole universe understands that God is right to destroy Satan and all His followers. It happens AFTER they see the evil of Satan's character.



This is in the context of the fact that Satan is the one who brings disease upon people whereas God is the one who heals and restores people. Again, it has nothing to do with whether God destroyed Sodom or the world by a flood, nor is it in the slightest related to the final destruction of the wicked.



Of course God is not waiting and looking forward to punishing the sinner. But that doesn't mean He won't punish sinners who persist in their rebellion. It simply means that God want to save people, not punish them. Everyone should know this already.



This is actually on page 728, but it has nothing to do with the issue of the final destruction of the wicked.

It's in the context of the story of Absolem, David's rebellious son. It merely shows that God often allows people to reap the result of their sins. We all already recongize and agree with this. But again, it is unrelated to the main issue of the destruction of the wicked or God's use of force against Satan in heaven.



Yes, of course, this is true, but it doesn't tell us anything about the final destruction of the wicked. It is not even related to the topic.



It would be good to know if this quote is in any source other than Ms. 17.

Everyone acknowledges that God often has destroyed sinners by allowing Satan and evil men to do the destroying. God will allow Satan full control over the wicked just before Christ returns. But again, it is not related to the final destruction of the wicked.



Again, God will allow Satan to destroy, but it isn't telling us anything about the final destruction of the wicked. It is already well known that God often allows Satan to destroy.

Ellen White says destruction comes from two sources: from God's angels when He commands, and from the fallen angels when God permits. This is obviously when God commands the angels to permit Satan to destroy.



But if you go back over each one,you will see that none of those quotes support the idea that God won't destroy the wicked at the end of the 1000 years. None of them are even dealing with that issue.



The problem with the quote is that it doesn't deal with the issue of the final destruction of the wicked. All elder Haskell is saying is that God allowed Satan to live in order to prove his evil character.

Haskell believed that the wicked would be destroyed by God in fire at the end of the 1000 years. See his book, The Seer of Patmos, pp. 262, 336, 337. When Haskell writes about the death of the wicked, he says that "Fire comes down from God out of heaven, and devours them, and they become ashes upon the earth." "Then from his throne God breaths upon the assembled multitudes. Fire comes down from God out of heaven, and mingles with the fire which comes from the interior of the earth; and it devours them... The earth is cleansed by fire; sin, and all its blasting effects are destroyed. The controversy is ended."

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT HASKELL-- WHO YOU QUOTED TO SHOW THAT HE SUPPORTS YOUR VIEWPOINT-- ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT GOD DESTROYS THE WICKED BY REAL FIRE. ELLEN WHITE CLEARLY AGREED WITH HIM.

John, nobody has said that the wicked won't be destroyed at the end of the 1,000 years. They will be and there is enough light revealed on this topic to know how God will destroy them. Read Ezekiel 28:6,10 again. The question is, What does the Bible mean when it says that "Fire came down from God out of Heaven and devoured them." Rev.20:9.

It is the same when we read that "Because they did not receive the love of the truth God will send them strong delusion that they may believe the lie." 2 Thess.2:11.

If I remember correctly, your answer to this is that sending strong delusion is not the same as sending fire to devour the wicked. Is that really a fair answer? What gives us the right to say that the strong delusions do not come directly from the Lord upon the wicked but the fire does?

May God have mercy on His people.

sky

But what about the plain quotes that do not agree with your position Pnatt?

What of those, are you going to quote those as well my friend?

Or just those that you use to support this position?


Mark :-)

Problem you have here Pnat, is that you might look at the Lamb and miss the Lion...

Question:

What causes the destruction of the wicked when Jesus comes (second coming)?

Mark :-)

Here's the statement:



The context is dealing with the destruction of the wicked (see the part in bold).



This is the whole question. Do the wicked die as the result of some artificial process, like sending a criminal to the electric chair, or does God leave them to reap the inevitable result of their sin. From DA 764, it seems very clear that it's the latter.



This is a circular argument.

Compare the logic expressed here with DA 764 or GC 541-543. It's the same logic.

DA 764 says "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."

This isn't literal fire, and the context is, without question, the destruction of the wicked. Again, DA 764 is the same logic as the COL statement.



I didn't said it was. The topic I was discussing wasn't the second death.

Regarding your interpretation, that's not what she's saying. She's talking about how the Jews forged their own fetters, causing God to remove His protection, and that it is thus that Satan conceals his own work.



Again, the destruction of the wicked wasn't the question I addressed.



Again, this wasn't the topic I was discussing. The quote brings out the character of Satan (he is the destroyer) and explains how he works, and God's actions in relation to that.



Again, the final destruction was not the question I was discussing.

Christ's character did not change when He left this earth. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

There's a key point brought out in the quote, which is



Clearly setting people on fire to make them suffer and die would be manifesting a disposition to hurt and destroy those who acted contrary to God's ideas.



So you're idea is that the principle that one has the spirit of Satan if one wishes to destroy those who act contrary to one's ideas doesn't apply to the One who said it? The SOP tells us that Christ's words had power because He lived what He taught. Isn't it obvious that when Christ said what He said, it was because He Himself did not have disposition being spoken of here? He wasn't saying "It's OK for me to want to hurt and destroy those who act contrary to my ideas, but not for you."

Christ gave us an example to follow. He revealed the spirit of God. There isn't one standard of morality for Christ and another for us. There is one standard, which is the law.



If God applies more and more force to compel His enemies to desist, He's using force to win His cause. There couldn't be a clearer example of this than the plagues of Egypt, as you understand them.

The Great Controversy is about the vindication of God's character and the principles of His government. *Everything God does, every act He performs, enters into this.* God's character, and the principles of His government, are revealed by what God does.

If God uses compelling power, *then this is a principle of His government*.

If God uses compelling power, *then this is a part of His character*.

*Every revelation of God's character is God at work to win the Great Controversy.* You can't compartmentalize what God does, and say only some things count. The character is revealed by all that one does.



God doesn't force people to accept Him. He doesn't use compelling power. He doesn't coerce the will. He not only doesn't do these things as a means of winning the Great Controversy; He doesn't do them at all.

If God did do these things, then He would be doing them to win the Great Controversy, because every single thing that God does contributes to, and is for the purpose of, winning the Great Controversy.



You're going hither and yon here. The whole point of my post was that there was just one quote of Ellen White's which discussed the principles involve viz a viz God's taking direct violent action to accomplish His purposes. We've been through this before. God did not transfer the war to the earth. Satan did this.

Satan was free to tempt any created world at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All the worlds had this tree. No other world ate of the forbidden tree. This world did. So Satan set up his kingdom here. This is straightforward, completely logical, and fits what has been revealed to us. There was no a priori reason that earth should fail as against any other world. Satan could just as easily have set his kingdom up elsewhere.

Regarding Satan's being cast from heaven, we read:



This is exactly how God wins the Great Controversy. Exactly the same thing God did win the Great Controversy is what God did to cast Satan from heaven. This is very clear from this statement. How was Satan cast down? By having his disguise torn away.



1.Everything God has done shows God's character in contrast to the character of Satan. If God uses principles not found in His government, only found in the government of the enemy, then He is revealing His character in so doing, and winning the Great Controversy in so doing. You can't limit God's winning the Great Controversy to just some acts, because the winning of the Great Controversy is accomplished by the revelation of God's character, and *everything God does reveals His character.*

2.If God threatens to set people on fire to burn for days if they don't accept Him, then He is using force to get people to accept Him.



The post was not discussing the final destruction of the wicked, but this is still not true. It has to do with final destruction of the wicked because the same principles are involved. Three pages later this is made clear.



More to the point, the destruction takes place after the whole universe understands that death is the inevitable result of sin, which Christ's death revealed.





This is the same principle involved as when God is said to have destroyed by violence.



Yes it does. It's the same principle.

The principle is, God gives laws which govern our health, whether physical or spiritual. Satan induces people to disobey these laws. Then calamity comes as a result. Satan then casts the blame against God for what he has accomplished.

I'm going to skip some.



1.These aren't the issues that were being addressed in my post.
2.It's not unrelated. It's the same principle.

(this was talking about God's allowing the results of sin to occur to punish sin)



If I were addressing that issue, I would have chosen statements dealing specifically with that issue.

Anyway, it's not true that none of these statements are dealing with the issue, as some of them had direct references to the issue, and all of them had an indirection relationship to it, because it's the same principle that's involved. The principles of God's government don't change. His character doesn't change.



This clearly *isn't* all elder Haskel is saying. This isn't even the main point. It's barely even a point at all.

Haskel's main point is this:



Immediately previous to this Haskell wrote:



This says, "They should live until death should come as a result of the course they pursued." That's the same thing EGW says in DA 764. Death is the inevitable result of sin (EGW). Death comes as a result of the course they pursued (Haskell).

If they live until death comes as result of the course they pursued, then death could not have come from some cause unrelated to the course they were pursuing.



The Bible says this. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the idea that the wicked will be destroyed by fire and will become ashes. What's being argued against is that they will be set on fire to suffer torture for days.

Regarding the shouting (all caps, which is rude), you can better emphasize things like this:

1.*This is being emphasized.*
2.This is being emphasized.
3.This is being emphasized.
4.This is being emphasized.

How do you know it is not literal fire?

Or worse, look for the Lion and miss Christ altogether (common problem, both in the time of Christ and now; expecting a militant Christ).



Short answer: The light of the glory of God.

Here's what it said (you inadvertently cut off the answer to your question, which is just above what you quoted):



It says:



This isn't literal fire because God isn't a literal fire, nor is the glory of God a literal fire (the glory of God is His character).

I agree.

Mark

How do you know that Gods "glory" does not manifest itself in a "physical" manner?

Agreed, His glory is His character.

But that does not mean that His Glory does not have a "physical manifestation".

What is the visible representation of His Glory?

Light.

What is "light"?

Energy.

What is "fire"?

Energy.


To accept that the light is energy, but that energy does not have any "burning" aspect, is to deny the plain statements of scripture in my view.


How do you reconcile light and fire being different, when they are essentially the same thing?