Is destruction inevitable by a loving Creator?

[Guest]

pnattmbtc,

Why do you not answer the questions John asked instead of sidestepping?

[John317]

Hey, Richard, it's about time-- where in tarnation you been? lol :-)

[pnattmbtc]

I've asked this question several times, and still don't know the answer. Those of you that believe the wicked will be set on fire for many hours or many days, how does this happen?

1.God's character causes spontaneous combustion, and ignites them.

2.God sends fire from heaven upon them, like a lightning bolt, and that sets them on fire, to burn like a torch.

3.The wicked are in a soup of molten lava, a sea of glass, and this causes them to be set on fire.

Or perhaps a combination of the above? Or none of the above? I'd be especially interested in an explanation of the EW statement that says that the fire continues to burn them until there is no particle left. Does this mean they lost their feet, then their legs, then their stomach, up until their neck, and finally their head? (I'm assuming this is the right order, so their indescribable agony continue as long as possible. I'm guessing the part of the brain that perceives pain would have to be the last to go.)

[Guest]

I've been watching.

[pnattmbtc]

Another question I've asked a number of times is how does the idea that God will set people on fire tie into the cross? On the cross we see that Jesus Christ felt the anguish that the wicked will feel when mercy no longer pleads for the guilty race. The sense of His Father's displeasure against sin was felt keenly by Him. His heart was broken, and He died. He wasn't set on fire, however. But His heart did melt like wax.

Given that, in order to receive the life that was His, Christ suffered the death that was ours, the second death, how is it that He wasn't set on fire?

Also in the cross we see the wrath of God against sin revealed. What happened? Did God punish and kill His Son?

[pnattmbtc]

Another question that comes to mind is how is it that God would use violence and force to accomplish His purposes when these are the tools of the enemy? Before the entrance of sin, these things did not exist. According to the SOP, these are not a principle of God's government, but are only to be found in the government of the enemy. So why would God be using these tools? She says that love is the means by which God governs, and that the principles of kindness, mercy and love He uses in the judgment. How can setting someone on fire for many hours or many days in order to cause them to suffer as much as possible be construed as kindness?

[Guest]

He didn't need to be set on fire to be the perfect sacrifice.

[Lutz13]

"Love Me, or I'll set you fire!" How can that work?

Like this:

"And whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace!"(Daniel 3:6) Looks like God and Nebuchadnezzar have the same idea.

[pnattmbtc]

Richard, why don't you answer the questions I've asked? I've written at least ten times as much in response to John's questions as you've written in response to mine.

It's pretty difficult to catch everything someone else writes, when he writes as much as John or I do. If John misses something I've asked him, I don't accuse him of "sidestepping" what I said. I just ask the question again! It seems to me this is a better alternative than my questioning his motives would be.

[Guest]

I would be careful about what you are saying about God.

[pnattmbtc]

He didn't need to be set on fire to be the perfect sacrifice.

And the wicked do not need to be set on fire to be punished for their sins.

Also, this doesn't address the questions I asked. To re-ask one of them, Christ suffered the death which is ours, the second death. How could He have done so if the second death involves being set on fire?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I would be careful about what you are saying about God.

Are you speaking to me? If so, what I said about God that you take issue with?

I certainly agree with the concept of being careful about what one says about God. Even more important than what one says about God is what one believes about God. From the heart the mouth speaks.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: John317

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?

Her heart was devoted to Sodom. She rejected God in favor of it.

Quote:

J:You seem to be saying that God did indeed send the fiery serpents upon the Israelites, is that right?

I said the Bible says this.

Quote:

J: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.

This is from "The Great Controversy" chapter one, discussing the destruction of Jerusalem.

Quote:

Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them... (p. 35)

Is it your opinion that God was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem? That God was responsible for the existence of sin? I'm asking you these questions because it seems to me the same logic you are applying above would argue that it is.

My opinion is that God is not responsible for any of these things. A point often missed in the argument you're presenting is that God did not simply stand idly by and permit a bad thing to happen, but God was caused to remove His protection.

This is a very significant point.

Quote:

J: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?

If you had water to give to me, and I knocked it out of your hand so it fell out of the vessel it was in, would you be responsible?

You obviously didn't miss his questions, because you quoted them. And then you sidestepped a straight answer.

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

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?

Your analogies do not work at all! Try it the other way around you are trying to offer me water, yet I refuse to drink it! Is it your fault? NO! Though God is not an accuser He would rather say "It's my fault!" "I'm going to do this thing to you!" When the reality is we do it to ourselves. David's great sin caused a huge mess within his family. Something God said "I will cause this to happen!" All God did was permit David's sin to take its course. God didn't directly cause Absalom to take David's concubines. He didn't have Amnon rape Tamar. God gave Amnon two years to repent. He didn't and thus he refused to drink that water God had offered him. So what happened? God allowed his sins to take him, Absalom murdered him.

Do you accept the above?

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

"Love Me, or I'll set you fire!" How can that work?

Like this:

"And whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace!"(Daniel 3:6) Looks like God and Nebuchadnezzar have the same idea.

I was talking about this.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

"Love Me, or I'll set you fire!" How can that work?

Like this:

"And whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace!"(Daniel 3:6) Looks like God and Nebuchadnezzar have the same idea.

yes, we miss the lessons the bible teaches, dont we?

i dont mind the honest disagreements because it makes me turn to the Lord and study more

but sure wish there were a forum where we could study the bible without the attacks and misrepresentations....

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Lutz13

Like this:

"And whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace!"(Daniel 3:6) Looks like God and Nebuchadnezzar have the same idea. [/quote']yes, we miss the lessons the bible teaches, dont we?

i dont mind the honest disagreements because it makes me turn to the Lord and study more

but sure wish there were a forum where we could study the bible without the attacks and misrepresentations....

Did someone attack you?

[Lutz13]

I would be careful about what you are saying about God.

Why? Your view portrays God acting the same as Nebuchadnezzar. Bow down or you get the fire. There is no way of getting around this. What happened? God saved them from that fire! Just like the world will be exploding all around and Jesus will be standing in the midst with us and we will not be burned. He can protect those who trust Him. Guess who the fire burned? Yes the wicked men who tossed them into the furnace!

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

I would be careful about what you are saying about God.

Why? Your view portrays God acting the same as Nebuchadnezzar. Bow down or you get the fire. There is no way of getting around this. What happened? God saved them from that fire! Just like the world will be exploding all around and Jesus will be standing in the midst with us and we will not be burned. He can protect those who trust Him. Guess who the fire burned? Yes the wicked men who tossed them into the furnace!

The wicked will incinerate themselves in the end. Maybe Satan in his pride brings fire down on those who would try to kill him, and in the process fries himself. Who knows at this point...

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Lutz13

Like this:

"And whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace!"(Daniel 3:6) Looks like God and Nebuchadnezzar have the same idea. [/quote']

I was talking about this.

we need to understand there are people who honestly feel this. no one is criticizing God but the ideas presented about God.

there are people in the world who feel the picture is far worse.

if we take offense as if we were God Himself, how can we possibly witness to them and draw them to Christ?

[Guest]

My "view" as you call it is what the Bible says, and God dosn't have to explain himself to me. Or you either for that matter.

[Woody]

God explains things to me all the time.

[Lutz13]

My "view" as you call it is what the Bible says, and God dosn't have to explain himself to me. Or you either for that matter.

So shall I assume Nebuchadnezzar and God act the same? This is what you are teaching.

[Guest]

No it's not. Nebuchadnezzar is not God. God gives every opportunity for salvation. Those who are lost have chosen to be lost.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

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"?

Yes, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Jesus there took a story that was well-known to the Jews of His day and taught a lesson from it that had nothing to do with the state of the dead. The lesson is that one's wealth or poverty in this life does not indicate one's condition in the next. It also teaches that there's no change in one's relationship to God after death, that one's salvation depends on this life and not on anything afterwards.

The Jews between the two testaments were influenced heavily by the Greek view of human nature and of death. This is a well-known fact of history. We see the result of this influence in the books of Maccabees.

If a person tries to interpret the parable in a literal way, assuming that it's teaching us what actually occurs when people die, it simply makes no sense, besides contradicting everything else the Bible says clearly about man's condition in death.

Quote:

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 you do is study for yourself the entire Bible, thoroughly, looking carefully at every passage that deals in any way with the topic of man's nature and with the condition of man after death.

Each person needs to do the same with the topic of this thread. Look at everything the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy says about it.

Quote:

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.

I think this is OK but it isn't the best way to look at it because God may not be as you want Him to be. Therefore, it is still best to base your view on clear Bible texts, not on preconceptions. In other words, base your view on inductive Bible study. Instead it sounds like you studied the Bible deductively on this subject. I think you arrived at the truth, in terms of the state of the dead, but it's not the best way to approach it with many other Christians who see God as being able to do the things you found revolting. They would probably think you should go by what the Bible teaches rather than by your feelings about God. Personally I believe they would have a good point, and I think it would be good to show them that the Bible does indeed teach that God does not keep people alive through endless ages of eternity.

Quote:

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.

I do indeed believe that SDAs understand the state of dead in the Bible better than most other denominations. The idea that the dead are immortal is not taught in the Bible but comes from tradition and from paganism. I don't apologize for this viewpoint. I'm sorry if you or others feel that it is unfair of me to say what I did.

The reason the subject of accepting the plain language of the Bible came up is due to the fact that those who are teaching God does not destroy, are having a hard time dealing with the Bible evidence. I perceive their explanations to be mostly based on a rejection of Bible texts (or a seeming refusal to carefully consider all the texts) or a rearrangement of what the Bible actually says.

For instance, the Bible says the fire comes down from God out of heaven. Some reply that the fire comes from human weapons. Others say the fire is merely symbolic and doesn't come from God and that God is merely passive.

The Bible says God destroyed the world with a flood, but some want to say it was the result of Satan's powers.

The Bible says that Sodom was destroyed as a direct result of God's activity due to the sins of the people, but some want to argue that it was a volcano that was going to happen anyway, and God simply chose not to prevent it.

The Bible says over and over that God caused the waters of the Red Sea to close in on the Egyptians and drown them. Some deny this.

Ellen White says it was an "angel of God" who killed the first-born of Egypt, but others want to say it was not the angel of God but Satan. If it was Satan, why doesn't Ellen White say it was Satan. Why does she say twice that it was "an angel of God"? Why? Was she confused? Was she wrong? Didn't she realize how her words would be understood? We might ask the same question of the Bible writers?

Do you see a pattern here by those who argue that God does not destroy? Look at what must be done with texts in order to defend this concept. For me, it seems a sign that the viewpoint is weak and untrue.

I don't know of a single text that does not make sense from the viewpoint that God destroys the wicked. On the other hand, I can think of many texts that make no sense at all from the viewpoint that God never destroys or kills.

In order to show this, let us look at every text in the Bible on the subject. I propose that we begin with Numbers 25 since it's a chapter I brought up before but of which I have not seen any satisfactory explanation.

Do you have one?

Quote:

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.

The apparent confusion is not the fault of God's word. The reason for the many denominations is not because of the way the Bible was written.

Remember what God Word says about itself: God's word is truth. It is perfect. It is exactly the way God wills it to be. God was not without purpose when He inspired the Bible. I find it to be His word to me personally every day. He speaks to me through it.

I agree with 1 Cor. 2: 13.