Is destruction inevitable by a loving Creator?

[LifeHiscost]

Jesus was not forsaken! Jesus *felt* forsaken. There's a big difference!

OTOH there was a severence somewhere there, else Jesus' life would not have been forfeited. This is the reason why I have trouble with Jesus considered being in one place while the Father is in another and the Holy Spirit is in another. The only time there was ever separation of any member of the Godhead with the others, One died. But then that's another topic.

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

Sounds like more than just a feeling to me. It was what killed him

Somewhere in the Spirit of Prophecy it is written that Jesus died of a broken heart. I've seen people who have lost a mate, go to their grave far sooner than expected, as a result of that deep original loss. It is not difficult for me to believe Jesus greatest injury had little to do with His physical trauma, but was fully caused by the attacks upon His heart of love for the very ones who were making effort to beat Him to death.

"Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34 21st Century KJV

Praise God for a love we little know or appreciate.

Blessings!

[pnattmbtc]

The only problem is that your theory doesn't agree with the plain language of Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy. The Bible says the angels of God said they were sent to destroy the city but could not destroy Sodom until Lot escaped.

[pnattmbtc]

T:We need to consider all of what Scripture has to say on a subject. When Christ was asked if fire should be sent from heaven to destroy the wicked, he said those asking Him didn't know the spirit they were of. This suggests that setting people on fire is not of the spirit of God.

J:We also need to consider context. Remember that Jesus came here as the Lamb of God and as a prophet. He will not come as the Lamb of God or a prophet but as Judge and King of kings. When Christ came he didn't come to condemn or judge but to save everyone who would accept Him. But I think you will admit that when He comes the second time, Christ will not be coming to save the wicked but to punish them. That's how the Bible puts it. The day of salvation for the wicked will be finished, and the day of vengeance will be here. See Romans 2: 4-11; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; Rev. 19: 11-21.

[LifeHiscost]

when Christ died the second death, only His Father could have done this.

Totally disagree! I know it's not politically correct, but the 3 Hebrew worthies were willing to go to the furnace rather than be politically correct. Sorry about that.

Regards!

[Nan]

Yes, men can kill a fellow man--but this is not the ultimate destruction. And a Spirit Being other than the Creator does not have ANY authority to cause the ultimate destruction of humans either. Only the Creator can cause the second death--therefore, when Christ died the second death, only His Father could have done this.

A couple of points....Jesus was the Creator (John 1:1-3 for starters) and He said that He laid down His own life for the sheep.(John 10:14).

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

T:We need to consider all of what Scripture has to say on a subject. When Christ was asked if fire should be sent from heaven to destroy the wicked, he said those asking Him didn't know the spirit they were of. This suggests that setting people on fire is not of the spirit of God.

J:We also need to consider context. Remember that Jesus came here as the Lamb of God and as a prophet. He will not come as the Lamb of God or a prophet but as Judge and King of kings. When Christ came he didn't come to condemn or judge but to save everyone who would accept Him. But I think you will admit that when He comes the second time, Christ will not be coming to save the wicked but to punish them. That's how the Bible puts it. The day of salvation for the wicked will be finished, and the day of vengeance will be here. See Romans 2: 4-11; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; Rev. 19: 11-21.

No, I don't really agree with your ideas here. In DA 108, commenting on the 2 Thess passage, EGW comments that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. The very next sentence she speaks of Christ as the "revealer of the character of God." Jesus Christ is the light of the glory of God. Light = revelation. Glory = character.

The wicked are slain by the same thing which gives the wicked life. This can't be literal fire.

It's not that God changes character, so that something which, at one time, would cause Him to say that such an idea is of another spirit no longer applies, but the wicked don't want anything to do with heaven. GC 541-543 says that the same principles of kindness, mercy and love are involved in the judgment. She further says that the wicked are excluded from heaven by their own choice. I don't see how one could think that setting one on fire for many days or hours could be construed as kindness. I also don't see how one could think that someone would voluntarily choose this.

Quote:

In all due respect, pnattmbtc, it seems to me that your argument is with the Bible, and not with me.

With all due respect, I think your argument is also not with me, but with the truth of God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ.

Quote:

I am only expressing these things in Bible language.

I disagree. Language involves more than words. It involves reasoning and culture. Everything you write smacks of modern Western reasoning and culture. The Bible is an ancient Eastern book. You seem to not in the least take this into account. You don't seem to consider in the least what the language written would have meant to the ones who wrote the Bible. At least, to this point, I haven't seen you bring this up.

Quote:

Your resistance seems to be against Scripture. I'm completely comfortable with the way the Bible expresses these things. I have no desire to change the language or rearrange things to make them sound better to modern ears. I believe we can completely trust God to do right because it was God who created life and it was God who gave His life in order to save people who hate Him.

I think what God wants is that we believe the revelation of His character which Jesus Christ portrayed. In my opinion, you are suggesting that God acts in a way which is contrary to what Jesus Christ revealed. I think God is just like Jesus Christ. I don't believe Jesus Christ would set someone on fire. I think His reaction to His disciples demonstrates this. One can almost hear Him sighing. Even now, I hear Him sighing that people think God will do the things they think He will.

Quote:

Christ said, "Do not fear those who can only kill the body but fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." Criminals and even Satan can't destroy both body and soul but Christ and the Father can and will. That's why we have nothing to fear from mankind or Satan--as long as we're in union with Christ-- but we have plenty to worry about if we aren't right with God. Wouldn't you agree?

Your idea appears to be that Christ is saying that we should be afraid of what God will do to us if we aren't right with Him. Basically God is saying

Quote:

You better be right with me, or I will set you on fire. But you won't die right away. You'll burn for many days or hours. However, if you do respond to my invitation, then I'll take you to heaven instead of setting you on fire. One of your first duties will be to decide how long your loved ones should be set on fire for. So please accept my invitation, so you can be one of the fire setters, instead of one of the fire settees.

I don't see how an idea such as this can lead to something positive.

If you disagree with my characterization of your thought, please point that out.

How very interesting! :)

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: John317

My own view is that we are always better off simply accepting the plain language of the Bible.

I'm in full agreement with that statement but also recognize that if a person does not believe that a Higher Power is necessary for understanding, that which is plain as the nose on one's face with that guidance, only if another believer has interceded for their benefit, and if they personally haven't made themselves enemies of God, will they be able to understand

ought but what God allows in their darkened mind. And the underlined is true in any case.

This statement of my own opinion based on the Word and is not alluding to anyone on this forum as being beyond the pale of Jesus' guidance.

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14 NKJV

Blessings!

then my brother, an explanation is needed as to why our evangelists spend so much time explaining that what the bible says it does not mean, such "forever and ever", and "today thou shalt be with me in paradise".

if we are going to "accept the plain language of the bible" as it is and not look any deeper than we have to give up our doctrine on the "state of the dead".

it seems to me that there is such a resistance to the possibility of our previous understanding being wrong as to make us make statements that we should have thought about a little more deeply.

do we now need to accept the doctrine of predestination? how many doctrines do we have to give up or take on by not studying the bible deeper and even deeper?

does the above verse apply more aptly to the poster than to the ones it is thrown at?

and that does not excuse any unGodly behavior on any other side either.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: LifeHiscost

if we are going to "accept the plain language of the bible" as it is and not look any deeper than we have to give up our doctrine on the "state of the dead".

After studying this topic and reading many books from both sides of the question' date=' I don't believe that the plain language of the Bible teaches the immortality of the soul and the endless torture of the wicked. In fact the opposite it true.

Quote:

it seems to me that there is such a resistance to the possibility of our previous understanding being wrong as to make us make statements that we should have thought about a little more deeply.

Could you give a couple of examples? Your sentence above is somewhat unclear to me.

I've given some thought to these things before. I graduated from LL University with a theology degree, where I studied under our leading systematic theologian, Fritz Guy. I've thought seriously about this subject for the last 30+ years, having sat for about 10 years in Graham Maxwell's Sabbath School class, a man who is well known for teaching on the topic under discussion here. I interviewed him on the same subject for an SDA publication. I also read books on the subject which take the view you take. So I've got the view I take after giving the issues long and deliberate thought, and looking carefully at both sides. And I continue to study it with an open mind, reexamining the evidence carefully and prayerfully. I enjoy reading systematic theologies and theological journals on the topic as well as exchanging views about it with people of many different viewpoints. We all have a lot to learn. We can go on studying the Bible forever and still see new things in it.

Quote:

do we now need to accept the doctrine of predestination?

I don't believe so.

Quote:

how many doctrines do we have to give up or take on by not studying the bible deeper and even deeper? [/quote']

None that I know of. The deeper we study the better SDA beliefs look, including the Bible teaching that the wicked are destroyed by fire that comes from God out of heaven.

[John317]

[John317]

[John317]

Show the strongest Bible and SOP evidence that it was a volcano.

[John317]

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

if we are going to "accept the plain language of the bible" as it is and not look any deeper then we have to give up our doctrine on the "state of the dead".

After studying this topic and reading many books from both sides of the question' date=' I don't believe that the plain language of the Bible teaches the immortality of the soul and the endless torture of the wicked. In fact the opposite it true.

Quote:

it seems to me that there is such a resistance to the possibility of our previous understanding being wrong as to make us make statements that we should have thought about a little more deeply.

Could you give a couple of examples? Your sentence above is somewhat unclear to me. [/quote'] do we now need to accept the doctrine of predestination?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Christ said, "Do not fear those who can only kill the body but fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." Criminals and even Satan can't destroy both body and soul but Christ and the Father can and will. That's why we have nothing to fear from mankind or Satan--as long as we're in union with Christ-- but we have plenty to worry about if we aren't right with God. Wouldn't you agree?

Your idea appears to be that Christ is saying that we should be afraid of what God will do to us if we aren't right with Him. Basically God is saying

Quote:

PNATTMBTC---You better be right with me, or I will set you on fire. But you won't die right away. You'll burn for many days or hours. However, if you do respond to my invitation, then I'll take you to heaven instead of setting you on fire. One of your first duties will be to decide how long your loved ones should be set on fire for. So please accept my invitation, so you can be one of the fire setters, instead of one of the fire settees.

I don't see how an idea such as this can lead to something positive.

If you disagree with my characterization of your thought, please point that out.

Yes, God is telling people to be careful to make the right decision. See the books of Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation in the NT, and the books of Deut., Proverbs, Ecc. in the Old.

There are many warnings in the Bible and in the Spirit of Prophecy about what will happen to those who disobey God. Those warnings are given in love just as a parent gives warnings to children. Take, for instance, Rev. 14: 9-11, the Third Angels Message. It's warning people of what will happen if they receive the Mark of the Beast. Many more examples could be given from both the OT and the New.

[skyblue888]

John, you wrote:

"I've given some thought to these things before. I graduated from LL University with a theology degree, where I studied under our leading systematic theologian, Fritz Guy. I've thought seriously about this subject for the last 30+ years, having sat for about 10 years in Graham Maxwell's Sabbath School class, a man who is well known for teaching on the topic under discussion here. I interviewed him on the same subject for an SDA publication. I also read books on the subject which take the view you take. So I've got the view I take after giving the issues long and deliberate thought, and looking carefully at both sides. And I continue to study it with an open mind, reexamining the evidence carefully and prayerfully. I enjoy reading systematic theologies and theological journals on the topic as well as exchanging views about it with people of many different viewpoints. We all have a lot to learn. We can go on studying the Bible forever and still see new things in it."

John, I can say pretty much the same thing but you know what, I had to unlearn most of the things I was taught from our theologians and here is the reason why:

"And to a great degree, theology, as studied and taught, is but a record of human speculation, serving only to darken counsel by words without knowledge." M.H.442.

I have sat at the feet of some who were considered to be among the best teachers in Adventism and I have read many books by adventist authors for as many years as you have only to find myself having to unlearn almost everything. I was no longer to be chained down to so many erroneous maxims, theories, and doctrines. No wonder Mrs. White stated that we have more to unlearn than to learn and that "We need to be converted as did the Jews." F.W.77, bottom of page. To those who were considered the greatest in His day, Jesus said, "You understand neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." And Mrs. White was shown that we were repeating their history to the very letter. The other day I quoted her saying that "the words of Christ," "You must be born again," "are spoken just as verily to presidents of conferences, elders in our churches, and those occupying official positions in our institutions." T.M.369.

When the Holy Spirit impressed this truth upon my mind, that "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression," I knew I had just been taught, in a moment, what all the greatest men of the earth could not have taught me in a life time. I knew right there and then that this had to be one of those keys Jesus talked about when He said to Peter, "And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." Matt.16:19.

To me, this declaration, that "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression" was heavenly illumination, the key of knowledge, the key to know God as it is our privilege to know Him. In time I realized how that one single oracle of God was exceedingly broad and yet it is ridiculed, spoken against, and made very little of. But it is the everlasting truth and it must be kept in mind at all times when reading the Scriptures. I do believe that unless we accept this simple declaration with the simple faith of a little child, we will not be able to arrive at a correct understanding of the truth concerning the character of God, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin.

sky

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

you seemed to have missed the point that my further comments addressed. you stated that we should take the plain language of the bible.

lets put them back in context shall we? if we are to do as you suggest then we have to give up the state of the dead doctrine and take on predestination because the "plain language of the bible" demands it. but studying deeper we find that "forever and ever" doesnt necessarily mean "forever and ever", for just one example.

Yes, we need to take the plain language of the Bible, and taking the plain language of the Bible does not mean we would accept the Calvinistic interpretation of predestination or that we would have to believe that "forever and ever" means endless time.

You're evidently misunderstanding what "plain language" means.

It does not mean ignoring the basic, well-established principles of hermeneutics.

Quote:

JOHN317--I've given some thought to these things before. I graduated from LL University with a theology degree, where I studied under our leading systematic theologian, Fritz Guy. I've thought seriously about this subject for the last 30+ years, having sat for about 10 years in Graham Maxwell's Sabbath School class, a man who is well known for teaching on the topic under discussion here. I interviewed him on the same subject for an SDA publication. I also read books on the subject which take the view you take. So I've got the view I take after giving the issues long and deliberate thought, and looking carefully at both sides. And I continue to study it with an open mind, reexamining the evidence carefully and prayerfully. I enjoy reading systematic theologies and theological journals on the topic as well as exchanging views about it with people of many different viewpoints. We all have a lot to learn. We can go on studying the Bible forever and still see new things in it.

Quote:

teresaq(sda)-- thats nice, i guess. i just dont know what it has to do with the point i was bringing up about not being able to take "the plain language of the bible as it is".

I wrote the above in response to the following unclear sentence:

Quote:

it seems to me that there is such a resistance to the possibility of our previous understanding being wrong as to make us make statements that we should have thought about a little more deeply.

Quote:

ive never heard maxwell. deliberately never listened to him or many others.

I do not doubt it. Dr. Maxwell is well-known as a teacher of the idea that God does not destroy. In fact, it is fair to say that he has been the main voice of that idea in the SDA church for the last 60 years. His views on it are somewhat misunderstood by both sides, but he's generally known for his views on the character of God, the Great Controversy theme, and what some people call "the moral influence theory."

Why would you deliberately choose not to listen to him or others in the SDA church?

Quote:

in saying that im not sure how it comes across. it was not meant to be offensive. it has just been a rule of life for me for decades.

Could you please explain what you're talking about here? What was not meant to be offensive? I did not find anything you said offense.

Are you talking about the following exchange between you and LifeHisCost:

Quote:

LIFEHISCOST--This statement of my own opinion based on the Word and is not alluding to anyone on this forum as being beyond the pale of Jesus' guidance.

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14 NKJV

Blessings!

TERESAQ[sDA]---does the above verse apply more aptly to the poster than to the ones it is thrown at?

and that does not excuse any unGodly behavior on any other side either.

If that is what you were referring to, don't worry about it; it's fine.

[teresaq]

See PP 157-159. On page 160 of the same book, Ellen White says plainly that the angels of God turned back to Sodom "to accomplish their work of destruction."

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Jesus was not forsaken! Jesus *felt* forsaken. There's a big difference!

OTOH there was a severence somewhere there, else Jesus' life would not have been forfeited. This is the reason why I have trouble with Jesus considered being in one place while the Father is in another and the Holy Spirit is in another. The only time there was ever separation of any member of the Godhead with the others, One died. But then that's another topic.

Blessings!

whoa!!!

are you a seventh day adventist or of another denomination?

[John317]

John, you wrote:

"I've given some thought to these things before. I graduated from LL University with a theology degree, where I studied under our leading systematic theologian, Fritz Guy. I've thought seriously about this subject for the last 30+ years, having sat for about 10 years in Graham Maxwell's Sabbath School class, a man who is well known for teaching on the topic under discussion here. I interviewed him on the same subject for an SDA publication. I also read books on the subject which take the view you take. So I've got the view I take after giving the issues long and deliberate thought, and looking carefully at both sides. And I continue to study it with an open mind, reexamining the evidence carefully and prayerfully. I enjoy reading systematic theologies and theological journals on the topic as well as exchanging views about it with people of many different viewpoints. We all have a lot to learn. We can go on studying the Bible forever and still see new things in it."

John, I can say pretty much the same thing but you know what, I had to unlearn most of the things I was taught from our theologians and here is the reason why:

"And to a great degree, theology, as studied and taught, is but a record of human speculation, serving only to darken counsel by words without knowledge." M.H.442.

I have sat at the feet of some who were considered to be among the best teachers in Adventism and I have read many books by adventist authors for as many years as you have only to find myself having to unlearn almost everything. I was no longer to be chained down to so many erroneous maxims, theories, and doctrines. No wonder Mrs. White stated that we have more to unlearn than to learn and that "We need to be converted as did the Jews." F.W.77, bottom of page.

Yes, I agree with you. I wrote what I did in response to something teresaq said. He writes as if members here have not considered these questions deeply. For one thing this is not the first time it's been the subject of a long discussion on the forum. There have been quite a few over the last 5 years.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Your idea appears to be that Christ is saying that we should be afraid of what God will do to us if we aren't right with Him. Basically God is saying

Quote:

PNATTMBTC---You better be right with me, or I will set you on fire. But you won't die right away. You'll burn for many days or hours. However, if you do respond to my invitation, then I'll take you to heaven instead of setting you on fire. One of your first duties will be to decide how long your loved ones should be set on fire for. So please accept my invitation, so you can be one of the fire setters, instead of one of the fire settees.

I don't see how an idea such as this can lead to something positive.

If you disagree with my characterization of your thought, please point that out.[/quote']

Yes, God is telling people to be careful to make the right decision. See the books of Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation in the NT, and the books of Deut., Proverbs, Ecc. in the Old.

There are many warnings in the Bible and in the Spirit of Prophecy about what will happen to those who disobey God. Those warnings are given in love just as a parent gives warnings to children. Take, for instance, Rev. 14: 9-11, the Third Angels Message. It's warning people of what will happen if they receive the Mark of the Beast. Many more examples could be given from both the OT and the New.

parents tend to warn their children of the dangers "out there", dont they?

now there are parents who warn their children about not provoking the parents wrath, but we try to separate those children from what is considered abusive situations.

so, for me, the bible makes a lot more sense when i read it as God warning me of what the devil has in store. God, through the bible and sop, is telling me to flee to Him for safety from satanic wrath.

[John317]

See PP 157-159. On page 160 of the same book, Ellen White says plainly that the angels of God turned back to Sodom "to accomplish their work of destruction."

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

---if God rained down fire on sodom and gomorrah and the cities of the plain....Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

then what were the angels doing?

looks like we need to look a little deeper.

ylt Gen 14:10 And the valley of Siddim is full of bitumen-pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah flee, and fall there, and those left have fled to the mountain.

Please tell what you think. What were the angels doing, in your view? What is your explanation for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how does this harmonize with the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

you seemed to have missed the point that my further comments addressed. you stated that we should take the plain language of the bible.

lets put them back in context shall we? if we are to do as you suggest then we have to give up the state of the dead doctrine and take on predestination because the "plain language of the bible" demands it. but studying deeper we find that "forever and ever" doesnt necessarily mean "forever and ever", for just one example.

Yes, we need to take the plain language of the Bible, and taking the plain language of the Bible does not mean we would accept the Calvinistic interpretation of predestination or that we would have to believe that "forever and ever" means endless time.

You're evidently misunderstanding what "plain language" means.

no. im not misunderstanding what "plain language" means. my point still stands. if we are to take the bible as you say, we then have to reject the state of the dead, forever and ever, and take on predestination. that is just a couple of issues, not all.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: John317

See PP 157-159. On page 160 of the same book, Ellen White says plainly that the angels of God turned back to Sodom "to accomplish their work of destruction."

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

this is an interesting detail you brought out john.

[color:#3366FF]Here the angels left them, and turned back to Sodom to accomplish their work of destruction.... {PP 160.2}

---if God rained down fire on sodom and gomorrah and the cities of the plain....Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

then what were the angels doing?

looks like we need to look a little deeper.

ylt Gen 14:10 And the valley of Siddim is full of bitumen-pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah flee, and fall there, and those left have fled to the mountain.

Please tell what you think. What were the angels doing, in your view? What is your explanation for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how does this harmonize with the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy?

im confused with this response.

what did you understand my comment in red to mean?

i reattached the part in blue that you left out so that it makes more sense what i was saying.

[John317]

so, for me, the bible makes a lot more sense when i read it as God warning me of what the devil has in store. God, through the bible and sop, is telling me to flee to Him for safety from satanic wrath.

And what will happen if you don't? What does Rev. 14: 9-11 actually say? Not what does it mean to you, but what does it say will happen if you don't pay attention but go on and receive the mark of the beast?

Also check out 2 Peter 3: 11-14.

What is the purpose of the warning in Hebrews 3 and 4 about holding onto Christ? It is in order not to be lost, isn't it? And being lost means not having salvation but dying in the "wilderness" like the ancient Israelites. God uses such warnings. Hopefully people outgrow the need of them, but God has them there for those who need them.

Question:

Did the release of Israel from Egypt show the power of God or the power of Satan?

If all those things were done by Satan, then it seems to me that they show the power of Satan, and God merely stepped back and allowed Satan to work.

But that is not the way the Bible presents it.

Who caused the waters of the Red Sea to drown the Egyptians? Study Ps. 106: 7-11. Do you believe it was Satan who caused the water to cover the Egyptians?

Can you explain what happened at the Flood in a way that is both in harmony with Scripture and Ellen White and shows that God did not destroy the earth with a flood? What is your theory as to how it occurred?