Is destruction inevitable by a loving Creator?

[Guest]

How anybody can ignore that, and go straight to: "they all commit suicide and mass murder" is beyond me, John.

[skyblue888]

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 By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them... (GC 35)

Still did not address it.

sky

[Guest]

Nice quote sky, but it has nothing to do with God's destruction of the wicked at the end. The Babylonians are gonna burn, not Israel.

[pnattmbtc]

Me: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.

J: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.

[pnattmbtc]

Do you agree? If not, why not?

[John317]

I understand "God destroys no one" to mean that God doesn't destroy anyone.

The statement that God destroys no one must be taken in context. It must also be considered along with the dozens of statements in both the Bible and SOP that God destroys the wicked.

The statement of Ellen White that God "destroys no one" means the same thing as the Bible when it says that the wicked destroy themselves by their own choices.

Otherwise you're caught in a lot of contradictions, because it is obvious that God did destroy. Ellen White says in plain language that it was "the angel of God" who killed the first born of Egypt. And it is very clear, too, that it was God who made the waters of the Red Sea drown the Egyptians.

I don't believe that all those things were demonstrations of Satan's power. Moses' rod did not signal Satan that it was now time to destroy the Egyptians, did it? Did Satan turn dust into lice, or did God? Scripture ascribes the power to God. See Exodus 15; Ps. 106. Unless you can find something in either the Bible or in the Spirit of Prophecy which says that Satan did those things, I'll accept the Bible testimony that God did them.

[John317]

[pnattmbtc]

:Me:I understand "God destroys no one" to mean that God doesn't destroy anyone.

Quote:

J:The statement that God destroys no one must be taken in context.

What I wrote needs to be taken in context as well. Just quoting this one last sentence without any of the rest of the post is certainly going to lead to it's being misunderstood.

Here's a place where she talks about it:

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... (GC 35)

Here we see that their destroying themselves involved causing God's protection to be removed, and further see that Satan hides his own work as God's doing what He permits.

I agree that there are many statements which say that God destroys, and everyone here would agree that this is the case. Where the difference arises in how God destroys. Some believe that He does so by doing violent/forceful things Himself, or that He has His angels do these violent/forceful things. Others believe that force and violence are not principles of God's government, and to avoid the contradictions of which you speak, we need to understand the destruction of God along the lines explained in "The Great Controversy" chapter 1, describing the destruction of Jerusalem, from which I've quoted above.

Quote:

J:Ellen White says in plain language that it was "the angel of God" who killed the first born of Egypt.

We need to consider this in context, right?

Quote:

When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.

This is the context. Ten sentences saying the opposite of what you're contending, and one that (apparently) agrees with what you're contending, and you cite just the one, and ignore the ten.

This is the context immediately following:

Quote:

When God's presence was finally withdrawn from the Jewish nation, priests and people knew it not. Though under the control of Satan, and swayed by the most horrible and malignant passions, they still regarded themselves as the chosen of God.

Satan has control of the impenitent, which is why they suffer. Here's another statement, although taken from another source, which speaks of what Satan does as well:

Quote:

I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan's decided attacks upon them. It is Satan's power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of. (14MR 3)

Quote:

J:And it is very clear, too, that it was God who made the waters of the Red Sea drown the Egyptians.

That's one way of looking at it. It's not the only way. God permitted the waters to return where they were. What were the Egyptians doing there? They didn't have any right to be there. God was under no obligation to supernaturally keep the waters from returning in order to protect them. They had no claim to God's protection. They, by their resistance of the Spirit of God, caused God to withdraw. This is the same principle we've been discussing.

Quote:

I don't believe that all those things were demonstrations of Satan's power.

Clearly not. You perceive that God and Satan can do the same things without any problem. Both use violence and force to get their way when the occasion calls for it. For example, both will inhumanely punish those act contrary to their wishes (unless you wish to view setting people on fire for days or hours at a time as humane).

Quote:

Moses' rod did not signal Satan that it was now time to destroy the Egyptians, did it?

It signified the place from which God was to remove His protection. It is true that all destruction originates from Satan, but not all destruction necessarily comes directly from him. For example, Satan causes the poisonous plants to appear, and these plants have killed thousands. So Satan is indirectly responsible for all these deaths. However, he hasn't directly killed everyone who have been killed by these plants. (Some partake of poison inadvertently, some use the poison to kill others, etc.)

Quote:

Did Satan turn dust into lice, or did God? Scripture ascribes the power to God.

Scripture ascribes all power to God. God is presented as doing that which He permits. At the time of Moses, much scientific knowledge was unknown. Many events, whether natural or Satanic, would have been, and were, thought of as God's doing them. Even the act of the sun's rising and setting was thought of in terms of cosmic warfare. There was no concept of this happening because of the earth's rotation.

Quote:

See Exodus 15; Ps. 106. Unless you can find something in either the Bible or in the Spirit of Prophecy which says that Satan did those things, I'll accept the Bible testimony that God did them.

I know you will, and this is one of the wrong methodologies I was speaking of. Your methodology is to assume that if God is presented as doing something violent, then God did it, unless there is some other description of the event elsewhere in inspiration which says He didn't. So if it says in one place that God killed Saul, then God killed Him, unless somewhere else it says He didn't. If it says in one place that God destroyed Jerusalem, then God did it, unless another place it says that He didn't.

Another approach would be to consider the principle that God is presented as doing what He permits in some places in Scripture, therefore this is a principle that can be applied to other places. Indeed, certain portions of Scripture ascribe *everything* that happens to God. In the OT, Satan hardly exists, and was not perceived as the evil being we perceive him to be. This concept of Satan wasn't developed until after Malachi had been written. By the time Jesus came along, Satan was responsible for a whole host of things, including bad weather, mental problems, and illnesses. What happened? Was there a passing of the baton? God got tired of doing all the bad things and decided to let Satan do it?

That's one possibility. Another is perhaps Satan was more active in the OT than appears, because of the paradigm and mindset of the people had changed in regards to him.

[pnattmbtc]

Me:I believe in order to understand the Scriptures, we must know God as He has been revealed through Jesus Christ. If the OT texts appear to contradict the message of Jesus Christ (including His life and character), then there must be something wrong in our understanding of them.

Jesus Christ said that what He heard His Father say, He said, and the works He saw His Father doing, He did. Where did He hear and see these things? In the OT, which was the only Scripture Jesus Christ had. So Jesus Christ was saying, in effect, "Let me be your picture of God." Or "Look at Me if you want to know what God is like!" Or, to use His own words, "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

Now if there are differences in what we see when we look at Christ, and what we see when we look at the OT, the problem must be that we're not looking at the OT correctly. That's the way it seems to me. Instead, what I see from those who perceive that God does violent things, like setting people on fire and so forth, is that Jesus Christ is not viewed as a sufficient revelation of God's character. Studying Jesus Christ is good, but not sufficient. We need to supplement that with other revelations, such as the OT. Jesus Christ only revealed one side of God, the "nicey-nice" side, as someone characterized it. But, apparently, that's not the whole picture.

I think Jesus Christ's revelation *was* the whole picture, and if we want to understand God's character we need to start our study with Christ, especially the latter scenes of His life, and let Christ remain the center of our study.

J:On the basis of your view, then, let me see how you understand what Numbers 25 says.

If I did this, I would be doing the exact opposite of the approach I was suggesting should be taken. I've been arguing the first step should be to determine what God's character is like by studying Jesus Christ in His humanity, especially the latter scenes. What was Jesus Christ like?

[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.)

[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]

If I did this, I would be doing the exact opposite of the approach I was suggesting should be taken. I've been arguing the first step should be to determine what God's character is like by studying Jesus Christ in His humanity, especially the latter scenes. What was Jesus Christ like?

Does that mean you can't read other portions of the Bible, or try to explain texts that say the opposite of what you believe?

[pnattmbtc]

If I did this, I would be doing the exact opposite of the approach I was suggesting should be taken. I've been arguing the first step should be to determine what God's character is like by studying Jesus Christ in His humanity, especially the latter scenes. What was Jesus Christ like?

Richard.Does that mean you can't read other portions of the Bible, or try to explain texts that say the opposite of what you believe?

I believe to understand Scripture, we must know God. I believe we know God through Jesus Christ. So we should start there.

As I've pointed out that God's character, the cross, and Jesus Christ aren't even mentioned in these posts discussing that God sets people on fire for days our hours at a time. I think something is missing in a methodology that goes about trying to establish a point of view without considering these things.

[Guest]

Usually by the time one gets to this topic, one has already studied and understands those things. Are you saying you need to back up? The name of this topic is: "Is destruction inevitable by a loving Creator?"

We know he's a loving God, that should be evident in what he has done in our lives. The question is, will he finally destroy the wicked like he says he will?

[teresaq]

Usually by the time one gets to this topic, one has already studied and understands those things. Are you saying you need to back up? The name of this topic is: "Is destruction inevitable by a loving Creator?"

We know he's a loving God, that should be evident in what he has done in our lives. The question is, will he finally destroy the wicked like he says he will?

you mean how you understand He will based on how you understand inspiration.

[oldsailor29]

Usually by the time one gets to this topic, one has already studied and understands those things. Are you saying you need to back up? The name of this topic is: "Is destruction inevitable by a loving Creator?"

We know he's a loving God, that should be evident in what he has done in our lives. The question is, will he finally destroy the wicked like he says he will?

I think God will save us, but destroy sin.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

It is unfortunate that we as a people have not learned to overcome this simple lack of being able to accept someone who does not agree.

Time and time again I have seen this in life.

When someone rejects someones point of view, the person can think they are being rejected.

I myself have to deal with this tempation.

And that is exactly what it is.

And the behaviour is based in self.

But it often hides behind the guise of "holiness", or "rebuking in the Lord".

It took me a while to learn to resist this particular temptation and I am probably not completely free from it yet.

I think as a people we need to remember:

Reading the prophet does not make one a prophet...

Mark :-)

Well thought out frustrations. If the truth were told probably not too many of us could not identify with the reality. Allowing individuals to be who they want to be and to think the way they wish to think is an art, or if you wish, a talent, not every one has at this point of time. And just about the time we think we have it, our Father lets us fall on our face just to remind us;

""I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in Me and I in Him, the same bringeth forth much fruit, for without Me ye can do nothing."

John 15:5 21st Century KJV

Blessings!

I rather suspect it is a gift of the Spirit. :-)

Which removes all pride from the equation...

Mark

[Twilight]

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.

Amen. :-)

If God gave us a bible full of false principles then we are in serious trouble.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

John, you wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

sky

No comments John?

*did you take time to read my last posts about the flood in DID SAUL SIN thread?

The enemy is quite capable of flashing "light" into ones mind Sky.

This should not be the process.

The process is light is flashed, then all scripture studied.

If it matches accept it.

I do not think this matches after careful study and consideration.

It think it takes a statement from Ellen White and misapplies it.

Takes a statement and tries to define Gods character by that one principle.

I think it also has to ignore all the biblical evidence against it.

There are many false prophets gone out into the world, did you think they "knew" they were false prophets?

"Illumination" is not "revelation".

Mark :-

[Twilight]

An interesting thought comes to mind:

Some give God the right to "create".

But the do not give God the right to "uncreate".

Now is not this the clay telling the potter what to do?

God has the right to create and uncreate.

Yet many here seem to think that He does not...

This is the fundamental point.

Does God have the "right" to destroy?

Mark

[Twilight]

I do believe fire will be involved but it will not come directly out from the Lord but from their own weapons as Mrs. White was shown in vision. Yet as we all know the language of the Bible is that fire will come out from God out of heaven to consume them all.

I think you are misreading the vision and taking the points too far my friend.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

Are you searching for Truth or are you searching to determine Truth by the denomination with which one is a member? Are you refuting the underlined and if so, on what grounds. And again, this is and it may be on the Theological forum under the thread, ....Trinity, which I haven't been following since more often than not, more heat than light is generated when discussing the Subject.

Blessings!

I will remember that one... :-)

Made me chuckle.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

I understand "God destroys no one" to mean that God doesn't destroy anyone.

The statement that God destroys no one must be taken in context. It must also be considered along with the dozens of statements in both the Bible and SOP that God destroys the wicked.

The statement of Ellen White that God "destroys no one" means the same thing as the Bible when it says that the wicked destroy themselves by their own choices.

Otherwise you're caught in a lot of contradictions, because it is obvious that God did destroy. Ellen White says in plain language that it was "the angel of God" who killed the first born of Egypt. And it is very clear, too, that it was God who made the waters of the Red Sea drown the Egyptians.

I don't believe that all those things were demonstrations of Satan's power. Moses' rod did not signal Satan that it was now time to destroy the Egyptians, did it? Did Satan turn dust into lice, or did God? Scripture ascribes the power to God. See Exodus 15; Ps. 106. Unless you can find something in either the Bible or in the Spirit of Prophecy which says that Satan did those things, I'll accept the Bible testimony that God did them.

Amen.

And please make that a "statement", not an "inference". :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Richard

If I did this, I would be doing the exact opposite of the approach I was suggesting should be taken. I've been arguing the first step should be to determine what God's character is like by studying Jesus Christ in His humanity, especially the latter scenes. What was Jesus Christ like?

Richard.Does that mean you can't read other portions of the Bible, or try to explain texts that say the opposite of what you believe?

I believe to understand Scripture, we must know God. I believe we know God through Jesus Christ. So we should start there.

As I've pointed out that God's character, the cross, and Jesus Christ aren't even mentioned in these posts discussing that God sets people on fire for days our hours at a time. I think something is missing in a methodology that goes about trying to establish a point of view without considering these things.

I agree.

But we also have to understand that Jesus has different "roles".

And the execution of those "roles" seems to indicate that His character has many aspects to it that we might not like, because we are human.

This point has been made before.

Mark :-)