Sin destroy's itself...

[Stewart (SDA)]

There was "war" and there will be "war".

Now we could turn around and try to present this "war" as some type of hippy march, but the biblical language does not present it as such.

Mark :-)

Yes indeed, there was war and there will be war.

But Biblical language does present principles like this

Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:21)

How long has that principle been in operation? In my view it has always been in operation (as far as the loyal angels are concerned), even in the war that was fought in heaven.

_______

Stewart

[Twilight]

The whole point here, is that if "sin" just turns in on itself.

All God had to do was isolate it and let it destroy itself.

God did not have to intervene.

Not once.

But the fact of scripture is that sin contaminates.

It infects.

And only one more powerful than the infection can cure it.

-------------------

Imagine an outbreak of Ebola.

Now a religious sect says to the doctors, who are about to go in and treat the virus:

"You must not destroy the virus, that is evil."

"The only loving thing to do is, let it destroy itself."

"Stay out of the area, that is the only loving thing to do."

Would you join this sect?

Not me, I would join the sect that said:

"Get in there and deal with it, before it kills everyone."

Yet many on here are suggesting that if God did the same thing with sin, as the doctors would with an outbreak of disease means that God is evil?

Cmon guys put your thinking caps on!

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

There was "war" and there will be "war".

Now we could turn around and try to present this "war" as some type of hippy march, but the biblical language does not present it as such.

Mark :-)

Yes indeed, there was war and there will be war.

But Biblical language does present principles like this

Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:21)

How long has that principle been in operation? In my view it has always been in operation (as far as the loyal angels are concerned), even in the war that was fought in heaven.

_______

Stewart

And what makes you think all acts of destruction are "evil" Stewart?

If all acts of destruction are "evil" then Jesus sinned when He cursed the fig tree...

[Twilight]

Sin destroys itselt in the sense that "The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is no power to control the evil passions of the soul and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." G.C.36.

This is how sin destroys itself. It is persistence in unbelief and in rejecting light. Then the Spirit of the Lord has no other choice but to leave. The restraining power of God is in a measure removed from the sinner until it is fully removed. This is how sin destroys itself.

sky

This is in fact only one of the two ways God deals with sin, as this principle clearly shows:

The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere.--GC 614 (1911). {LDE 243.4}

[Guest]

This is what Mrs. White was shown. We must be careful not to add to these words or take anything away from them for they are stating an everlasting truth.

sky

We are not supposed to be using her words to form a single doctrine. Much less re-interpret the whole Bible.

Here you have taken a text that applies to the Bible only, and applied it to her words, which you then turn around and use to change the Bible. The very thing which the text tells you not to do.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

[Woody]

Good Point Richard.

[Guest]

Thanks Red.

[Woody]

No problem. I try to agree with you as often as I can.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

This is what Mrs. White was shown. We must be careful not to add to these words or take anything away from them for they are stating an everlasting truth.

sky

We are not supposed to be using her words to form a single doctrine. Much less re-interpret the whole Bible.

Here you have taken a text that applies to the Bible only, and applied it to her words, which you then turn around and use to change the Bible. The very thing which the text tells you not to do.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Amen!

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

How?

Quote:

This is the very reason God has to destroy it.

If it destroys, why can't God just let it destroy? Surely He could prevent it from contaminating others while it was destroying those who sin.

Quote:

But the only way He can destroy it, is when the whole Universe agrees that it is indeed a loving act to destroy sin.

It seems to me that what DA 764 is actually saying is that the only way He can allow those who have chosen sin to perish is when the whole Universe understands that death is the inevitable result of sin.

Quote:

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.(DA 764)

Quote:

This is why satan has been given room to "prove his point and nature".

This is the whole point of the 1000 years judgement.

God will be vindicated.

The whole universe will agree that Sin needs to be destroyed.

Then it will be destroyed.

If sin destroys those who practice it, why would God need to destroy it? And why would God use violence and force to destroy it, when His kingdom has nothing to do with violence or force?

Quote:

God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. (DA 759)

This isn't arguing that God couldn't destroy Satan by force temporarily, but could later one when things were better understood, but that force is not a principle of God's government at all. It's only found in Satan's government. So why would God use a tool to destroy Satan which is only found in Satan's government? If the prevailing power of God's government is truth and love, doesn't it make a lot more sense that God would use the prevailing power of His government to destroy Satan?

Indeed, this is precisely what will happen:

Quote:

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.(DA 764)

The glory of God is His character. God is love. In DA 108 it says that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. Light is truth. So we see that, indeed, the prevailing power of God's government, love and truth, are the means by which sin will be destroyed. Not force or violence, which are not principles of His government, but of the enemy.

Quote:

And not one seed of doubt will be left in the minds of the universe as to the fact it was a "loving" act. So this is why we have to be careful. When we say that God does not have the right to destroy, we are presenting one of satans arguments. We are presenting error of the very worst kind.

I'm not saying God doesn't have the right to destroy, but that the means of destruction are truth and love, not force and violence.

Quote:

We are also undermining a foundational position of the SDA church.

I'm hoping Kevin H. will step in here, as I believe he's studied this issue in some detail. I think history is on my side of this question. At least, I can name several pioneers who saw things I've been presenting them, and don't know of any who see them the way your are.

Quote:

We really have to be careful with this one. It is a false teaching.

We both agree on this point, but disagree as to what the false teaching is. I believe the false teaching is that God will use force and violence to destroy sin and sinners. I believe He will use truth and love to do so. It seems you view this idea as a false teaching. [/quote']

I think pnat, you are asking me questions that you need to ask of your own position...

You have taken the questions I have asked you and tried to turn them back this way:

If it destroys, why can't God just let it destroy? Surely He could prevent it from contaminating others while it was destroying those who sin.

Think about what you have asked here, in light of our understanding of the Great Controversy?

Mark

I really don't know what your point is here.

I would have liked it if you had responded to the points I made. After all, I did take the time to respond to your post.

If you decline, please respond to at least the following point. If the prevailing powers of God's government are truth and love, then it is by these powers that God should destroy sin. If force is not even a principle of God's government (and similarly for violence), how could God use force and violence to destroy sin?

[Guest]

Just because you choose to look at only one side of God's character, dosn't mean that everyone will. It is better to see the whole picture.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

So much so that people attribute his work to God' date=' clearly. [/quote']

What if the error is in saying that God does not destroy, because if He did, He is of the same character as Satan?

What if we just do not understand that one form of destruction is evil.

That another is merciful?

What if we then cause God's character to be darkened?

By saying all acts of destruction are evil.

Do you not realise that if we present this view as "truth", we have cast judgement on Gods right to destroy?

Mark

If God destroyed in the same way Satan did, by force an violence, then His character would be the same. If He destroys by truth and love, then His character is different.

God has the "right" to destroy, as long as He uses the prevailing powers of His government, which are love and truth.

Regarding sky's quotes from GC 35, 36, it's claimed that these are out of context, but they're not. If you read through the chapter, she makes quite a few comparisons to the principles in the destruction of Jerusalem and the final judgment. For example:

Quote:

Looking down the ages, He saw the covenant people scattered in every land, "like wrecks on a desert shore." In the temporal retribution about to fall upon her children, He saw but the first draft from that cup of wrath which at the final judgment she must drain to its dregs. Divine pity, yearning love, found utterance in the mournful words: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (GC 21, 22)

Quote:

Let men beware lest they neglect the lesson conveyed to them in the words of Christ. As He warned His disciples of Jerusalem's destruction, giving them a sign of the approaching ruin, that they might make their escape; so He has warned the world of the day of final destruction and has given them tokens of its approach, that all who will may flee from the wrath to come.(GC 37)

Quote:

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)

It's a big mistake to think that these are not the principles of the final judgment. They are clearly identified as such.

Of particular interest is the point that never was there given a more decisive testimony of the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty than the destruction of Jerusalem! That's amazing! Surely if God brings about destruction by His own hand, using force and violence, *that* would be a more decisive testimony of the certain punishment to fall upon the wicked than the diametrically opposed principle which is illustrated by the destruction of Jerusalem.

[Guest]

It's a big mistake to ascribe Satan's character to God just because you think it must be so, if he dosn't fit into your little box.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Just because you choose to look at only one side of God's character, dosn't mean that everyone will. It is better to see the whole picture.

The "whole picture" includes force and violence, which are not principles of God's government. For example:

Quote:

Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. (DA 759)

So why would including force and violence as a part of God's character be an improvement?

Perhaps God isn't like that. Looking at Jesus Christ, He certainly doesn't seem to be a violent Being.

[Twilight]

I can name several pioneers who saw things I've been presenting them, and don't know of any who see them the way your are.

Ellen White?

The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere.--GC 614 (1911). {LDE 243.4}

[pnattmbtc]

It's a big mistake to ascribe Satan's character to God just because you think it must be so, if he dosn't fit into your little box.

What are you responding to? When I spoke of a "big mistake," it was to the objection that the principles of GC 35-37 do not apply to the judgment. I don't see how your comment has anything to do with this (I was guessing you were addressing this by your choice of "big mistake." Perhaps you had something else in mind.)

[Twilight]

If God destroyed in the same way Satan did, by force an violence, then His character would be the same.

And here you have a misrepresentation of God's character.

The whole argument rests on the idea that it is wrong and evil for God to destroy.

Because of that, we find ourselves in the position where we are willing to condemn God if He does that.

The use of force is not reserved for evil.

Good also uses force, when it is shown to be the only viable option.

My friend, consider this:

If you are wrong, then you are maligning Gods character.

I would not be so quick to state "God is evil if He does this", unless I could view things with Gods wisdom and knowledge.

I especially would not want to state this is the "truth" based on an "application" of a selection of quotes from the SOP, knowing that I am using an outside source to establish doctrine.

A practice that I believe Ellen White was also against...

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

I can name several pioneers who saw things I've been presenting them, and don't know of any who see them the way your are.

Ellen White?

Ellen White is under debate, so I excluded her. Of course, you would include her as one who had the idea that God would burn people alive, and I wouldn't.

What I was responding to was your statement that the point of view being suggested, that God does not people alive, is contrary to the foundation of the SDA church. This is simply false. If the pioneers did not hold this view, it could not be a foundation point of the church. Indeed, not only did they not hold the view that God would burn people alive, they had the view I've been presenting. Specifically I'm aware of three pioneers who had this view: A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and George Fifield. Very likely W. W. Prescott as well, although I can't say for sure. And there were others who Teresa presented.

Now, of course, truth is not established by numbers, or the views of our pioneers, but I was merely responding to your point that the idea that God does not burn people is contrary to the foundation of the church. This assertion is untrue.

[Twilight]

Quote:

Just because you choose to look at only one side of God's character, dosn't mean that everyone will. It is better to see the whole picture.

The "whole picture" includes force and violence, which are not principles of God's government. For example:

Quote:

Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. (DA 759)

So why would including force and violence as a part of God's character be an improvement?

Perhaps God isn't like that. Looking at Jesus Christ, He certainly doesn't seem to be a violent Being.

Perhaps you are looking at Jesus in the role of the Lamb.

Jesus ordered destruction on many occassions in the OT.

It He did, then it was for reasons of love.

Do not forget that even if you allow God to be "permissive" in destruction, He is still complicant in that He "allows" destruction in His universe.

Either way, God allows violence...

Have you ever considered that?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Ellen White?

[/quote']

Ellen White is under debate, so I excluded her. Of course, you would include her as one who had the idea that God would burn people alive, and I wouldn't.

What I was responding to was your statement that the point of view being suggested, that God does not people alive, is contrary to the foundation of the SDA church. This is simply false. If the pioneers did not hold this view, it could not be a foundation point of the church. Indeed, not only did they not hold the view that God would burn people alive, they had the view I've been presenting. Specifically I'm aware of three pioneers who had this view: A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and George Fifield. Very likely W. W. Prescott as well, although I can't say for sure. And there were others who Teresa presented.

Now, of course, truth is not established by numbers, or the views of our pioneers, but I was merely responding to your point that the idea that God does not burn people is contrary to the foundation of the church. This assertion is untrue.

How do the fundamentals read?

Do they say that God does not destroy?

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

Me:If God destroyed in the same way Satan did, by force an violence, then His character would be the same.

Mark:And here you have a misrepresentation of God's character.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

How do the fundamentals read?

Do they say that God does not destroy?

Mark, I haven't been saying that God does not destroy, but that God does not use force and violence to destroy. Force is not a principle of God's government. The exercise of force is contrary to His principles. Even more so for violence.

Previously you stated:

Quote:

We are also undermining a foundational position of the SDA church.

I took this to mean the foundations of the church set when the church first began, which is why I was mentioning the pioneers. But above you mention the "fundamentals." Perhaps you have the fundamental beliefs in mind. If so, they read just like Scripture reads, from which they quote. It is not in the "fundamentals" that God will burn people alive to make them pay for their sins.

That's neither in Scripture, the SOP, or the fundamental beliefs.

Quote:

The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be judged; the earth will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but occupied by Satan and his angels. At its close Christ with His saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city; but fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be freed of sin and sinners forever. (Rev. 20; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Jer. 4:23-26; Rev. 21:1-5; Mal. 4:1; Eze. 28:18, 19.)

This is the fundamental belief which deals with the subject. It says, "The unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city; but fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth." There's nothing here about people being burned alive, much less a reason given for why they should be burned alive.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Perhaps you are looking at Jesus in the role of the Lamb.

Jesus ordered destruction on many occasions in the OT.

It He did, then it was for reasons of love.

If the exercise of force is contrary to God's principles, and force is not a principle of His government, but is only found in the government of the enemy, how could God be using it? The prevailing powers of His government are love and truth.

Quote:

Do not forget that even if you allow God to be "permissive" in destruction, He is still complicit in that He "allows" destruction in His universe.

By the same argument, God would be complicit in any sort of sin, child-abuse, rape, murder, anything.

Quote:

Either way, God allows violence...

Have you ever considered that?

Clearly God allows violence. Nothing happens that God does not allow.

[Guest]

The "whole picture" includes force and violence, which are not principles of God's government.

Excactly. And therein lies your mistake. You have departed from the very rules of Bible interprtation that Adventism was founded on. The foundation of Adventism was built upon William Miller's 14 points of how to study and interpret the Bible.

You have abandoned more that one of these, but the main one you have thrown out is point #4 where it says you have to look at ALL the texts dealing with the subject. If your theory holds up without contradiction, then it is right.

Also the Bible is to be taken literally, just as it reads. You cannot do this, because the plain language of the Bible dosn't fit into your paradigm.

RULE IV.

To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then

let every word have its proper influence, and if you can form your theory without a

contradiction, you cannot be in an error.

RULE V.

Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound it to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his

sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed or wisdom is my rule, not

the Bible.

RULE VI.

God has revealed things to come, by visions, in figures and parables, and in this way the same

things are oftentime revealed again and again, by different visions, or in different figures, and

parables. If you wish to understand them, you must combine them all in one.

You are using EGW in a way that she specifically said not to do. We are not to use her writings to form doctrine, or to interpret the Bible.

[Guest]

How do the fundamentals read?

Do they say that God does not destroy?

Mark

Mark, If you watch this sermon you will see just how wrong the pacifists are, and why. I knew they were wrong, but I didn't know how wrong until I found this historical Adventist teacher by the name of Adrian Ebens.

Click on the link, and then go down to the fourth sermon on the list. It's called:

"The Inroads of Spiritualism" by Adrian Ebens

http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.ph...Itemid=99999999

This is amazing, and very enlightening.