Moderators John317 Posted October 3, 2009 Moderators Posted October 3, 2009 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. I don't find that to be true at all. The Bible's plain language does not teach the immortality of the soul. It teaches that the dead do not know anything. You sound as if you believe the plain language of Scripture supports false doctrines, and I believe that is itself false on its face. Nor does the plain language of Scripture mean that you would need to accept the Calvinistic view of predestination. Why not start a new thread and show how the plain language of the Bible is opposed to SDA beliefs? I believe myself that the Bible teaches the truth plainly and clearly. I don't see the Bible as speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Some seem to have to make the Bible look like it's difficult to understand in order to support the idea that God does not destroy the wicked. That seems to me to be a mark against that doctrine. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted October 3, 2009 Moderators Posted October 3, 2009 im confused with this response. what did you understand my comment in red to mean? I am simply asking you to explain what you believe about what you think happened at Sodom, particularly as regards the work of the angels. Have you come to a conclusion? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 What happened at Sodom and Gomorrah? The answers are there but will we believe these answers if they happen to show that the fire that destroyed these cities did not come directly out from the Lord as most people believe? sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
teresaq Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) 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? i know the verses, my brother. please stop treating me as if i were ignorant and didnt know anything. lets start with revelation 14:9-11, what time period are you applying them to? Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
skyblue888 Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 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 No comments John? *did you take time to read my last posts about the flood in DID SAUL SIN thread? Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted October 3, 2009 Moderators Posted October 3, 2009 No comments John? Yes, I replied to that in post #280413, page 26 of this thread. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
teresaq Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) 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. I don't find that to be true at all. The Bible's plain language does not teach the immortality of the soul. It teaches that the dead do not know anything. You sound as if you believe the plain language of Scripture supports false doctrines, and I believe that is itself false on its face. Nor does the plain language of Scripture mean that you would need to accept the Calvinistic view of predestination. Why not start a new thread and show how the plain language of the Bible is opposed to SDA beliefs? I believe myself that the Bible teaches the truth plainly and clearly. I don't see the Bible as speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Some seem to have to make the Bible look like it's difficult to understand in order to support the idea that God does not destroy the wicked. That seems to me to be a mark against that doctrine. my brother, there was no need to make this all complicated and convoluted. do we, or do we not, have bible lessons saying that "forever and ever" does not mean "forever and ever"? do we, or do we not, also have bible lessons on the phrase "today shalt be with me in paradise"? do we or do we not have bible lessons on what the predestination verses mean? Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Moderators John317 Posted October 3, 2009 Moderators Posted October 3, 2009 lets start with revelation 14:9-11, what time period are you applying them to? Revelation 14: 9-11. From now until the Second Coming. Those words of warning are intended for our day and will remain relevant until the end of human probation just before Christ returns. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted October 3, 2009 Moderators Posted October 3, 2009 *did you take time to read my last posts about the flood in DID SAUL SIN thread? No, not yet. I'll try to read it tomorrow, Sabbath. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted October 3, 2009 Moderators Posted October 3, 2009 do we, or do we not, have bible lessons saying that "forever and ever" does not mean "forever and ever"? do we, or do we not, also have bible lessons on the phrase "today shalt be with me in paradise"? And? What, again, does this mean to you, in relation to the topic at hand? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
teresaq Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 original posts 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." this is an interesting detail you brought out john. Quote: 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. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Moderators John317 Posted October 3, 2009 Moderators Posted October 3, 2009 do we or do we not have bible lessons on what the predestination verses mean? I assume that for you, it seems that the Bible plainly teaches a doctrine of predestination such that SDAs do not believe. Is that right? I don't believe that the plain language of Scripture would lead to acceptance of the Calvinist view. The mere fact that a church has Bible lessons is not evidence that the Bible does not teach a doctrine clearly. In fact, just because some people may not agree with someone else about the meaning of a sentence does not mean the sentence is not clear. There are many reasons for two or more people to disagree about the meaning of a piece of writing. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
pnattmbtc Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 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. J: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. "Love Me, or I'll set you fire!" How can that work? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Explain briefly in your own words how you believe Sodom was destroyed. Who was responsible for its destruction? Please show Bible support for your answer. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Did anyone mention Hosea in connection with Sodom and Gomorrah? If not, I will. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Moderators John317 Posted October 3, 2009 Moderators Posted October 3, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 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. "Love Me, or I'll set you fire!" How can that work? What does God (the pre-existent Christ] tell the people of Israel in Exodus 19: 20, 21? What will happen if they do not obey Him? Explain how you understand Rev. 14: 9-11. What is the warning? What does God say will happen to those who receive the mark of the beast? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted October 3, 2009 Moderators Posted October 3, 2009 "Love Me, or I'll set you fire!" How can that work? What does the Bible say? What will happen to those who do not love God and repent of their sins? Again, explain what is said in Rev. 14: 9-11. What will happen to the vast majority of human beings who've ever lived? Will they be saved or lost? What does the Bible say in Rev. 20: 9 as to how the wicked are punished? Why do you believe God had the Bible written in those words? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
pnattmbtc Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 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. Interesting. For me it was, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
teresaq Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) do we, or do we not, have bible lessons saying that "forever and ever" does not mean "forever and ever"? do we, or do we not, also have bible lessons on the phrase "today shalt be with me in paradise"? And? What, again, does this mean to you, in relation to the topic at hand? i was responding to post #280260 and you took it from there. you also divided my post so that it is now out of context. it had to do with taking the "plain language" of the bible.... i am pointing out that the plain language of the bible is not always what the bible means. it isnt that much of an effort to collect all the posts in this regard and show the sequence, complicating and convolution. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) do we or do we not have bible lessons on what the predestination verses mean? I don't believe that the plain language of Scripture would lead to acceptance of the Calvinist view. you divided my post and are taking it all out of context. i made my point. you disagree. end of subject. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Moderators John317 Posted October 3, 2009 Moderators Posted October 3, 2009 Lot's wife caused this to happen by causing God to withdraw His protection, similar to His sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites. Please explain what Lot's wife did to deserve to be turned into a pillar of salt. What did she do to deserve God's allowing that to happen when He could have prevented? You seem to be saying that God did indeed send the fiery serpents upon the Israelites, is that right? He "sent them" by withdrawing his protection so that snakes that otherwise would have been outside the camp came into it and killed the people who had been disobedient and rebellious. Do you believe it was Jesus who did this-- withdrawing his protection and knowing as He did it that many people would die? How does the fact that God withdrew His protection from Lot's wife mean that God is not responsible for what happened? Didn't God know what would happen when He withdrew His protection from her? Of course He did know. Therefore, even if we say that these things happened because God simply allowed them to happen, God is still responsible. In the same way, if someone can prevent harm, or if they can save someone, but they refuse to do it, it is the same as if they caused harm to the person. If you are going to die unless you get water, and I have water which I refuse to give you, shouldn't I be held responsible if you die of thirst? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
pnattmbtc Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 I don't find that to be true at all. The Bible's plain language does not teach the immortality of the soul. It teaches that the dead do not know anything. You sound as if you believe the plain language of Scripture supports false doctrines, and I believe that is itself false on its face. Nor does the plain language of Scripture mean that you would need to accept the Calvinistic view of predestination. Why not start a new thread and show how the plain language of the Bible is opposed to SDA beliefs? I believe myself that the Bible teaches the truth plainly and clearly. I don't see the Bible as speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Some seem to have to make the Bible look like it's difficult to understand in order to support the idea that God does not destroy the wicked. That seems to me to be a mark against that doctrine. Before becoming an SDA, I believed in predestination, and immortal soul, that the wicked would spend eternity in hell. There are statements which seem to indicate these things, which I quoted in a previous post. Those who hold these views have answers to objects which sound very similar to the ones we offer. In particular, when I studied the subject of the state of the dead, I found many texts on both sides. It wasn't like the Sabbath, for example, which has virtually no evidence on the other side of the question. There are quite a lot of texts which seem to indicate the soul is immortal. In one location, the explanation we offer is that Jesus spoke to people who believed in an immortal soul, so He spoke in language they could understand, repeating their error in order to teach them a different truth. That's certainly not very convincing. How would you feel if you presented something Jesus Christ said teaching some doctrine, and someone answered, "Jesus spoke this way because He knew His listeners believed this false idea, so He spoke to them in language they could understand in order to teach them a different truth"? Back to my story about the state of the dead. So here I was with many texts on both sides of the issue, and each side had an explanation as to why their side was correct and the other side was wrong. Each side argued that they were taking the texts as they read, and the other side was reading into their texts preconceived ideas. So I was confronted with the question of how to make a decision. Show I count the number of texts each side presented and see which side presented more? What I did was to ponder each position in the light of what I believed God to be like. As I thought about it, the idea of eternal burning hell didn't seem to me to match as well with what I understood God's character to be as the Adventist view. At any rate, my point in all of this is that I think your take on this is rather unfair to those who hold a different position than you do. You perceive that you are accepting the plain language of the Bible, but those of other denominations are not. If it were as simple as accepting the plain language of the Bible, we wouldn't have so many different interpretations. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Moderators John317 Posted October 3, 2009 Moderators Posted October 3, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 I don't believe that the plain language of Scripture would lead to acceptance of the Calvinist view. you divided my post and are taking it all out of context. In the forum, you might notice that it's not necessary to quote the entire statement that someone makes. This is perfectly proper and right. For one thing, it saves space, and gets more directly to the point. If, however, you do not like how someone quoted you, you are always free to show the full context or the full quote. I encourage you to do that if you feel that your statement was taken out of context. I do not see how that is the case here, but evidently you want to be finished with that topic. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Guest Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Please explain what Lot's wife did to deserve to be turned into a pillar of salt. What did she do to deserve God's allowing that to happen when He could have prevented? You seem to be saying that God did indeed send the fiery serpents upon the Israelites, is that right? How does the fact that God withdrew His protection from Lot's wife mean that God is not responsible for what happened? Didn't God know what would happen when He withdrew His protection from her? Of course He did know. Therefore, even if we say that these things happened because God simply allowed them to happen, God is still responsible. In the same way, if someone can prevent harm, or if they can save someone, but they refuse to do it, it is the same as if they caused harm to the person. If you are going to die unless you get water, and I have water which I refuse to give you, shouldn't I be held responsible if you die of thirst? Excellent point John Quote
pnattmbtc Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Me:Lot's wife caused this to happen by causing God to withdraw His protection, similar to His sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites. J:Please explain what Lot's wife did to deserve to be turned into a pillar of salt. What did she do to deserve God's allowing that to happen when He could have prevented? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.