Is destruction inevitable by a loving Creator?

[pnattmbtc]

Where we differ is on the application of the principle when it comes to events in the Bible, such as the Flood, Sodom, and the final destruction of Satan and the wicked. It seems to me that there are certain emergencies in the universe that occur because of sin when God took/will take extreme measures. God takes these actions even knowing that he's going to be misunderstood by many people. But I don't see any way out of acknowledging that these acts are of God, because I believe the Bible and SOP don't give me any reason to believe they result directly from the activity of Satan. The Bible consistently & often attributes them to God. It is not as if we find verses or passages that explain that Satan was the one who brought the Flood, destroyed Sodom by fire and brimstone, or brings fire down from heaven to destroy himself and his followers.

Just a quick note. These aren't the only possibilities. Natural disasters are a possibility (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah could have been a volcanic eruption; it certainly makes sense that someone of that time would have described such as "fire and brimstone").

[Guest]

Do you not see how far out of your way you have to go to make scripture harmonize with your viewpoint?

The truth dosn't require all those mental gymnastics of yours.

[Lutz13]

Yes I am familiar with this verse. What is your understanding of it? please share your thoughts.

sky

I like to refer to it when people question what the wrath of God is. Since it is clearly refering to king Saul. " I gave you a king in My anger, and took him away in My wrath" God is saying that He took Saul away in His wrath. When clearly Saul fell on his own sword.

What if it read: I gave you earth and took it away in My wrath. Earth will fall on its own sword.

[pnattmbtc]

It is just exactly what both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy say: "Fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes" Satan and all the wicked. Rev. 20: 9.

[John317]

Sky, are you familiar with Hosea 13:11? It makes the wrath of God clear as day!

How about what God says in Hosea 11: 1-9? God asks Ephraim, "How can I give you up?"

Then compare Genesis 6: 3-8. God's Spirit wouldn't always strive with ["abide in," NRSV] the people of that day. He gave them up to reap the consequences of their sins. What were those consequences? The Flood. Jesus used the Flood an an example of what will happen when God gives up the wicked before the Second Coming.

Of course, that will happen AFTER the end of human probation. Before the end of human probation, Christ continues as the mediator and High Priest, doing everything He can to save humankind. Finally, He gives them up after He's done all He can and can do no more. Everyone will have made up his mind either for God or for Satan. At that point, Christ ceases to be our High Priest and He comes as the Judge in order to save His people and punish the wicked.

Does that mean Christ changes? No. Wasn't it "meek and mild" Jesus who led the Israelites in the wilderness and swore that the generation who came out of Egypt would rot in the sand of Sinai? Yes, it was. (See 1 Cor. 10: 9) Does that mean Jesus changed between that time and when He walked this earth as a man among men and talked to us about the amazing love and patience of God? No, Jesus didn't change, but many think so, because they misunderstand Him. Ellen White writes about the mistake people make when they think Christ's love means He won't do what Rev. 20 says He will do.

Can you show from the Bible and from Ellen White's writings clear evidence that it was Satan who caused the Flood? Can you also show that Satan was the one who caused the fire to fall on the Sodomites? Jude 7 says that the fire that destroyed Sodom is an example of the fire that will destroy the wicked at the end of the 1000 years. Genesis describes it as fire that came from the Lord. There's nothing in the Bible that would give us the idea it came from any other source.

Ellen White says the angels of God went to Sodom in order to destroy it. This agrees with the text in Genesis. Notice there that the angels tell Lot that they cannot destroy the city until Lot and his family have escaped. They say explicitly that they are going to destroy it. They don't say they can't allow Satan to destroy it until Lot leaves.

We don't see the angels leaving the city but going to it, and there's nothing to indicate in any Bible texts mentioning it that the angels abandon the city so that Satan can destroy it.

If God did not cause the Flood or destroy Sodom, can you offer a reasonable explanation that is in harmony with what the Scriptures and Ellen White tell us about these events?

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Can you show from the Bible and from Ellen White's writings clear evidence that it was Satan who caused the Flood? Can you also show that Satan was the one who caused the fire to fall on the Sodomites?

Nope. As you point out - we Can't show that from the Bible. Can't prove it from what Ellen White says if you take all of her statements relating to those events -- I do not negate one over the other.

The same God that has mercy - is the one that has justice in Romans 3. It is the Christ who suffered on the cross in the gospels -- that orders the execution of Annanias and Saphira in Acts.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Do you not see how far out of your way you have to go to make scripture harmonize with your viewpoint?

The truth dosn't require all those mental gymnastics of yours.

This is also what most concerns me about those explanations. I find it interesting to consider all these theories, but it seems to me that if something is true, it's not going to require us to reject the way Scripture reads and substitute our opinions. I believe truth will be satisfied to leave Scripture the way it is. This doesn't mean we can't conjecture and theorize, but let's at least be willing to acknowledge when we're doing it.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

It is just exactly what both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy say: "Fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes" Satan and all the wicked. Rev. 20: 9.

Inspiration also says that the glory (character) of Him who is love will destroy the wicked. Do we conclude that love, or God, is literal fire?

No, of course neither God nor God's love are literal fire. But what we can be sure of from Scripture is that the nature of God is such that sin is destroyed in the presence of God's unveiled glory, and the process of that destruction takes the form of what appears to human eyes to be real fire. It gives off heat and burns and kills. At the end it both consumes the wicked and cleanses the earth. Ellen White described it in her vision as seething fire covering the entire surface of the earth, setting rocks on fire. Clearly that is not a natural but a supernatural fire. And only a supernatural fire could kill supernatural beings like angels. Man's weapons could never hope to destroy demons, or fallen angels.

Quote:

We need to consider all of what Scripture has to say on a subject.

Indeed. Just as we need to consider all that Ellen White wrote on the subject. That's why I suggest reading everything in The Exhaustive Ellen White Commentary On Revelation that has to do with the destruction of the wicked. Most of that material is found in her comments on Rev. 20. Read it for yourself, but for me, I don't see any doubt there that (1) the fire that destroys the wicked is quite real, although supernatural, and it comes from God as the source; and (2) the punishment of the wicked is meted out to them by the saints in unison with Jesus, according to the deeds done in the body, which are written in the book of death.

[LifeHiscost]

Totally agree with your submission, John317, and allow that it is the only way the decisions can be non-arbitrary while allowing free will, which I believe determines where we will spend eternity.

As to the underlined I should have said, the free will is instrumental in making available by God, a home where we will be safe.

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”"John 8:32 NKJV

Good show!

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: John317

I'm OK with those expressions and have no need to change them or make them appear differently. If that is how the prophets of God express it, I believe we can express it the same way. I don't believe the Bible is making God look evil when it puts it in this language. The prophets weren't wrong. I believe God had the Bible written in that way for a good purpose.

When I give Bible studies on the destruction of the wicked, I make sure that people understand God's infinite love, and that God gets no pleasure from the death of the wicked. However, I don't try to change what the texts on the subject actually say. I don't tell people, "It says the fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes the wicked, but that is not really what happens. What actually happens is...." and then give them my interpretation or opinion. I let the Bible speak, even though we may not like it.

Amen. :-)

Ditto! One of the things we can be assured of is that if we give the Word to the best of our ability and leave the recipient in God's hands as we pray for them, we need not worry that in our desire to lift up Jesus, the party who desires the Truth will not receive what they need from a subsequent source as provided by the Holy Spirit.

"So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it." Isaiah 55:11 NKJV

"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6 NKJV

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: LifeHiscost

Complete agreement and grateful for the clarification.

Blessings! [/quote']

So these words, "The understanding of the people of God has been blinded, for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our good and gracious Lord has been presented to the people clothed in the attributes of Satan," do not refer to the Seventh-day Adventist people as a whole but to the world? Is that it?

sky

I'm suggesting, unless a person can accept all of the Word as revealing His love, there will be misunderstanding and improper guidance.

"But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”" Matthew 4:4 NKJV

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

Sky, are you familiar with Hosea 13:11? It makes the wrath of God clear as day!

"I gave you a king in My anger,

And took him away in My wrath. "Hosea 13:11 NKJV

Blessings!

[John317]

Natural disasters are a possibility (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah could have been a volcanic eruption; it certainly makes sense that someone of that time would have described such as "fire and brimstone").

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. In this, the angels certainly claimed that the destruction was due to their work, not a volcano. 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." Are we to suppose that she means the angels went back in order to allow Satan to destroy the city by means of a volcano? If that's what she meant, why didn't she write that the angels departed Sodom in order to leave Satan to do his work of destruction?

Did you realize that Ellen White says that the angels of God had also planned to destroy Zoar but because of Lot's plea, it was not destroyed after all? See PP 161. That could not have happened if the cause of the destruction was a volcanic eruption.

Also, if it was a volcano that destroyed Sodom, what is your explanation of what happened to Lot's wife? How, and why, did she turn to a pillar of salt for having looked back at a city destroyed by a volcano? See PP 161, 162.

Ellen White wrote, "The Lord rained brimstone and fire out of heaven upon the cities and the fruitful plain..." Almost the same language as found in Rev. 20: 9.

Finally, are we to believe that a volcano erupted for the express purpose of punishing Sodom for its immorality? Yet the Bible says plainly that Sodom was punished for its great sins. And moreover, Jude says that the fire which destroyed Sodom is an example of the fire that will destroy the wicked after the Judgment. How could this be true if the fire was from a volcano?

Not a single word in either the Bible or in Ellen White's writings suggest or even hint at a volcano as the reason for Sodom's destruction. None of the evidence we've examined supports the theory that Sodom was destroyed by a volcano. Have we overlooked anything or perhaps misstated the evidence?

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

[John317]

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.

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.

In all due respect, pnattmbtc, it seems to me that your argument is with the Bible, and not with me. I am only expressing these things in Bible language. 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.

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?

[epaminondas]

Turning God into a politically correct big daddy who wouldn't hurt a fly is very popular. Similarly, turning Jesus into a simpering queer is equally popular. What do we have? A final solution that will exterminate billions and a whip wielding, tell-it-like-it-is (Matthew 23) straight shooter who reacted to stupidity with impatience - how long do I still have to put up with you? Remember Jesus saying that to his disciples? It is not easy to come between a Jew and a profitable business. I've often wondered, did the disciples help? Was the attack so fast and furious that the traders were taken by surprise, seeing resistance as futile?

What should God do with those who won't toe the line? Jail them? I'm talking permanent solution here. Machiavelli in The Prince agreed that under certain circumstances, killing is the only solution. If any of you have a better solution, let's hear it.

[John317]

a Jew and a profitable business.

I seem to recall (on another thread) your saying something similar about James and Ellen White, that they were into the "religion business" and that she did her work well. You apparently think highly of dedicated Christians.

What would you do with the world as it is if you were God?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: John317

Would I personally set my loved ones on fire? I assume you're asking if I would do it in my present mental and spiritual condition. The answer is no. But then I don't hate sin to the extent that God does and I don't see just how evil and terrible sin really is.

Thank you for addressing my questions. I know these are difficult ones to address.

Your answer here seems to imply that if you only hated sin more, then you would be able to sentenced your loved ones to suffer being set on fire to burn for many hours or many days. The idea seems to be that because God is more holy than you are, and you still have a ways to go, that He is able to do things you cannot do, like set people on fire to make them suffer.

I think this is based on a distorted view of reality. The reality, is I view it, is that it is your similarity to God, not your unlikeness to Him, that prevents you from being able to sentence your loved ones to be set on fire to be made to suffer unimaginable agony to supposedly pay for their sins. This whole idea strikes me as barbaric and pagan. It doesn't you? That is, if you try to disassociate yourself from what you think the Scriptures are saying, and simply consider the concept itself, does it not strike you as, I can't think of a good adjective, I'll just go with "wrong", that God would make someone sentence their loved ones to be set on fire? Reminds me of Sophie's choice.

What if someone refuses? Let's says a sensitive soul says, "I'm sorry, I just can't do this. I can't sentence someone to be burned alive." What happens to such a person? Does (s)he get kicked out of heaven? Or would (s)he not be there in the first place? Do we need to come to the place to where we can set our loved ones on fire, or sentence them to be set on fire, to be good citizens of heaven?

Quote:

But the righteous during the 1000 years will think differently about sin after they have all the information about sin that God gives them. They will see how much it cost God and how destructive it was to so many billions of people. All of this will help the righteous to see sin as God sees it, which we clearly do not do at the present.

It seems to me that by studying the cross, we can view sin as He does. I just don't get the impression, from thinking of Christ on the cross (which I believe to be the greatest revelation of God's character) that He had any ideas of wanting to set people on fire to make them pay for what they've done. It seems to me that, rather than this, His thought was one of being willing to do anything, even go to hell, for the good of the ones who hated Him. "I may be lost," I hear Him saying (He couldn't see through the portals of the tomb), but you will be saved. He traded His life for my death.

Quote:

When we do see sin as God see its it, I believe we will be willing to die rather than bring sin back into the universe. And if we feel that way because of our hatred for sin, we would certainly be willing to see our loved ones be punished for their evil deeds rather than continue the cycle of sin and death.

This seems to be making a couple of assumptions:

1.Setting people on fire to make them suffer for many hours or many days is not sin.

2.Setting people on fire to make them suffer for many hours or many days helps to discontinue the cycle of sin and death.

I disagree with these ideas. Leaving aside the first one for a second, how could setting someone on fire possibly help? How does that make any sense whatsoever? Someone in heaven will be more likely to sin in the future because they didn't see the wicked writhing in agony being burned alive for hours or days? My believe is that what makes the universe safe for eternity is the conviction of God's goodness and self-sacrificing love.

Quote:

I hope this answers your question on this point. Let me know if it doesn't and I'll do my best to try to explain more clearly.

I appreciate this, and likewise. I appreciate your posts (taking the time to explain your thoughts and present well structured arguments, also your treatment of others).

But then you have a strange problem.

You have to explain why the Father withdrew Himself from Christ.

Why He permitted His Grace to be withdrawn so that Jesus could die.

Jesus committed no sin.

So if God is not the executor in this case, surely He had no right to withdraw from Christ?

He made a conscious decision to withdraw His protection.

From one who had done no sin.

In so doing He signed Jesus' death decree.

Jesus submitted to this.

Now we say that God withdraws Himself from sinners because of their sins and gives them up to die.

But God here withdrew Himself from the righteous....

Your thoughts?

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: John317

Where we differ is on the application of the principle when it comes to events in the Bible, such as the Flood, Sodom, and the final destruction of Satan and the wicked. It seems to me that there are certain emergencies in the universe that occur because of sin when God took/will take extreme measures. God takes these actions even knowing that he's going to be misunderstood by many people. But I don't see any way out of acknowledging that these acts are of God, because I believe the Bible and SOP don't give me any reason to believe they result directly from the activity of Satan. The Bible consistently & often attributes them to God. It is not as if we find verses or passages that explain that Satan was the one who brought the Flood, destroyed Sodom by fire and brimstone, or brings fire down from heaven to destroy himself and his followers.

Just a quick note. These aren't the only possibilities. Natural disasters are a possibility (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah could have been a volcanic eruption; it certainly makes sense that someone of that time would have described such as "fire and brimstone").

Is there a volcano in the area?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Lutz13

Sky, are you familiar with Hosea 13:11? It makes the wrath of God clear as day!

How about what God says in Hosea 11: 1-9? God asks Ephraim, "How can I give you up?"

Then compare Genesis 6: 3-8. God's Spirit wouldn't always strive with ["abide in," NRSV] the people of that day. He gave them up to reap the consequences of their sins. What were those consequences? The Flood. Jesus used the Flood an an example of what will happen when God gives up the wicked before the Second Coming.

Of course, that will happen AFTER the end of human probation. Before the end of human probation, Christ continues as the mediator and High Priest, doing everything He can to save humankind. Finally, He gives them up after He's done all He can and can do no more. Everyone will have made up his mind either for God or for Satan. At that point, Christ ceases to be our High Priest and He comes as the Judge in order to save His people and punish the wicked.

Does that mean Christ changes? No. Wasn't it "meek and mild" Jesus who led the Israelites in the wilderness and swore that the generation who came out of Egypt would rot in the sand of Sinai? Yes, it was. (See 1 Cor. 10: 9) Does that mean Jesus changed between that time and when He walked this earth as a man among men and talked to us about the amazing love and patience of God? No, Jesus didn't change, but many think so, because they misunderstand Him. Ellen White writes about the mistake people make when they think Christ's love means He won't do what Rev. 20 says He will do.

Can you show from the Bible and from Ellen White's writings clear evidence that it was Satan who caused the Flood? Can you also show that Satan was the one who caused the fire to fall on the Sodomites? Jude 7 says that the fire that destroyed Sodom is an example of the fire that will destroy the wicked at the end of the 1000 years. Genesis describes it as fire that came from the Lord. There's nothing in the Bible that would give us the idea it came from any other source.

Ellen White says the angels of God went to Sodom in order to destroy it. This agrees with the text in Genesis. Notice there that the angels tell Lot that they cannot destroy the city until Lot and his family have escaped. They say explicitly that they are going to destroy it. They don't say they can't allow Satan to destroy it until Lot leaves.

We don't see the angels leaving the city but going to it, and there's nothing to indicate in any Bible texts mentioning it that the angels abandon the city so that Satan can destroy it.

If God did not cause the Flood or destroy Sodom, can you offer a reasonable explanation that is in harmony with what the Scriptures and Ellen White tell us about these events?

Excellent post and points. Some really important points here.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Quote:

Can you show from the Bible and from Ellen White's writings clear evidence that it was Satan who caused the Flood? Can you also show that Satan was the one who caused the fire to fall on the Sodomites?

Nope. As you point out - we Can't show that from the Bible. Can't prove it from what Ellen White says if you take all of her statements relating to those events -- I do not negate one over the other.

The same God that has mercy - is the one that has justice in Romans 3. It is the Christ who suffered on the cross in the gospels -- that orders the execution of Annanias and Saphira in Acts.

in Christ,

Bob

And this is what causes me real concern.

We cannot "show" if from the bible.

So we have to "infer" it from the bible.

We are supposed to be bible believing Christians.

Not bible inferrring Christians.

I am also very uncomfortable how we are trying to build a doctrine from an interpretation of an SOP quote.

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Do you not see how far out of your way you have to go to make scripture harmonize with your viewpoint?

The truth dosn't require all those mental gymnastics of yours.

This is also what most concerns me about those explanations. I find it interesting to consider all these theories, but it seems to me that if something is true, it's not going to require us to reject the way Scripture reads and substitute our opinions. I believe truth will be satisfied to leave Scripture the way it is. This doesn't mean we can't conjecture and theorize, but let's at least be willing to acknowledge when we're doing it.

And can I add:

And not to condemn someone as spiritually blind when they do not agree with the conjecture and theorising.

I personally have been cast off and placed in the "heretic" camp for not accepting this teaching in a personal email.

It seems that fire is still being called down from heaven when one disagrees.

That is deeply concerning.

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Natural disasters are a possibility (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah could have been a volcanic eruption; it certainly makes sense that someone of that time would have described such as "fire and brimstone").

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. In this, the angels certainly claimed that the destruction was due to their work, not a volcano. 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." Are we to suppose that she means the angels went back in order to allow Satan to destroy the city by means of a volcano? If that's what she meant, why didn't she write that the angels departed Sodom in order to leave Satan to do his work of destruction?

Did you realize that Ellen White says that the angels of God had also planned to destroy Zoar but because of Lot's plea, it was not destroyed after all? See PP 161. That could not have happened if the cause of the destruction was a volcanic eruption.

Also, if it was a volcano that destroyed Sodom, what is your explanation of what happened to Lot's wife? How, and why, did she turn to a pillar of salt for having looked back at a city destroyed by a volcano? See PP 161, 162.

Ellen White wrote, "The Lord rained brimstone and fire out of heaven upon the cities and the fruitful plain..." Almost the same language as found in Rev. 20: 9.

Finally, are we to believe that a volcano erupted for the express purpose of punishing Sodom for its immorality? Yet the Bible says plainly that Sodom was punished for its great sins. And moreover, Jude says that the fire which destroyed Sodom is an example of the fire that will destroy the wicked after the Judgment. How could this be true if the fire was from a volcano?

Not a single word in either the Bible or in Ellen White's writings suggest or even hint at a volcano as the reason for Sodom's destruction. None of the evidence we've examined supports the theory that Sodom was destroyed by a volcano. Have we overlooked anything or perhaps misstated the evidence?

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

And this is where we go wrong if we continue to take one principle and beat every other principle to death with it.

We have to replace Fire from Heaven/Angels of God with:

Volcano

Mark

[Twilight]

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?

Powerful point.

This on its own should cause pause.

The only one, according to this quote, who can destroy body and soul is God...

Mark

[Lutz13]

But then you have a strange problem.

You have to explain why the Father withdrew Himself from Christ.

Why He permitted His Grace to be withdrawn so that Jesus could die.

Jesus committed no sin.

So if God is not the executor in this case, surely He had no right to withdraw from Christ?

He made a conscious decision to withdraw His protection.

From one who had done no sin.

In so doing He signed Jesus' death decree.

Jesus submitted to this.

Now we say that God withdraws Himself from sinners because of their sins and gives them up to die.

But God here withdrew Himself from the righteous....

Your thoughts?

Mark

Hey Mark,

I believe this is one of the mysteries of the gospel. Jesus became the sin bearer. He became sin for us. The sins of the world were placed onto Him. This is why the wrath of God was poured out onto Him. He prayed to His Father. "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."(Matthew 26:39) The cup Jesus was going to drink was the wrath of God. The cup that we should have all drank, yet He drank it in our place.

[Lutz13]

And this is where we go wrong if we continue to take one principle and beat every other principle to death with it.

We have to replace Fire from Heaven/Angels of God with:

Volcano

Mark

Mark, I'm speculating here. But I truly believe the vision Ellen saw of New York. The one in Testimonies for the Church, volume 9 page 12 refered to 9/11. She explains that God knocked down them down and they crumbled into little stones. We know they were knocked down by man, yet He takes blame because He allowed it to happen.

Refering to the volcano, and this may be a bit but have they found Sodom and Gomorrah?