Is destruction inevitable by a loving Creator?

[Twilight]

Mark, I wrote the following:

Quote:

This sounds like you do not believe that Jesus Christ in His humanity provided a full revelation of God's character. We need to supplement what Christ revealed in His humanity with other things, such as stories of destruction. I've understood you correctly?

You responded to my post, but I didn't see the answer to my question. At least, if you understood it, I didn't understand your answer. Would you agree that I've understood you correctly?

Also to respond to a point in your post, I've not claimed to understand God's character. I've said I believed that all that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ in His humanity.

I think Jesus revealed God's character of love perfectly at the cross.

But I do not think I understand it.

It is one thing for it to be revealed, it is another for a "finite" mind to claim to understand.

This is why I urge caution when we say that God does not "destroy", we are making a judgement of character.

And if we are wrong, we have sinned.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

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.)

It is clear that the destruction comes with fire.

But remember the burning bush.

It was not an "earthly" fire.

But it was still described as a fire.

It will look like a fire and have the effects of fire, but to define it beyond that is more than I believe the scripture reveals.

Just like the burning bush, the nature of the fire is not revealed there, it is just stated as a fact.

We must not use our "concept" of fire, to limit what the bible describes, but just accept the plain statements by faith (unless we have a good reason not to) and discuss the details if God reveals it.

All other discussions on the subject would be conjecture and "opinion".

God bless,

Mark :-)

[Lutz13]

If God were to tell us that He never destroyed or killed, I would be OK with it. I would only ask why the Bible kept telling us that God destroyed. Why didn't the Bible say that God allowed Satan to destroy the world in a flood or in the lake of fire? So I would have questions about the Bible-- not about God Himself.

He would probably just say. "Ask lutz13, he understood it...."

[Twilight]

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?

I would not for one second claim to know the answer to that question. :-)

Mark

[Twilight]

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?

I think first of all we have to define the possible uses of force:

1. A positive use of force to save a persons life.

2. A negative use of force to take a persons life.

If we start off with number 2 a an assumption, we are going to tie ourselves up in theological knots in my view.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: John317

Twilight:Jesus of course revealed the Father.

But all of Jesus work was not revealed on earth.

So we cannot truly say we have had the Father "fully" revealed.

John317:Very true.

Somehow I missed this from Twilight's post. From 8T 216 we read that all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed by Jesus Christ while in His humanity.

Quote:

All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." John 1:18.

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. (8T 216)

I don't see how what is written here could be true if Jesus Christ did not fully reveal the Father while in the flesh. Certainly "all man needs to know, or can know, of God" would encompass a full revelation, right?

Is it not a case that Jesus revealed Gods character to a point where we could comprehend it?

Was that not the very reason He came down in the guise of humanity?

Because God had to be "clothed" in humanity before we could begin to see His character.

Therefore, Gods Character has been revealed, but at a level we can comprehend. Which by implication means we cnnot comprehend fully Gods Character at this point, with our "human minds".

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

As they endeavored to represent God by material objects, their minds were blinded to His majesty and power; they ceased to realize the holiness of His character, or the sacred, unchanging nature of His requirements. As sin became general, it appeared less and less sinful, and they finally declared that the divine law was no longer in force; that it was contrary to the character of God to punish transgression; and they denied that His judgments were to be visited upon the earth. {PP 96}

Ouch...

Are we not hearing the same thing here?

[Twilight]

You have placed them above the word of God. Look at your words in your last post.

"no matter how the language of the Bible may seem to be contrary to those words, for the statement above is a divine commentary"

I think this is a valid point Richard has raised.

We are not to use a "commentary" to redefine the texts of the bible.

We are to use it to give light.

But when that commentary is used to "overthrow" the bible, we really need to step back and pray about our own usage of that commentary.

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

As they endeavored to represent God by material objects, their minds were blinded to His majesty and power; they ceased to realize the holiness of His character, or the sacred, unchanging nature of His requirements. As sin became general, it appeared less and less sinful, and they finally declared that the divine law was no longer in force; that it was contrary to the character of God to punish transgression; and they denied that His judgments were to be visited upon the earth. {PP 96}

Ouch...

Are we not hearing the same thing here?

Nobody has said any such thing here. That is why I am baffled at his quote.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Ouch...

Are we not hearing the same thing here? [/quote']

Nobody has said any such thing here. That is why I am baffled at his quote.

That is the point Lutz. :-)

When people say God does not destroy, man or satan does, then they are saying that God does not punish in the first person.

God is going to punish those that do not accept His grace.

Whether by participation or by lack of participation, it is Gods will the wicked are destroyed.

God does punish.

God does destroy, whether directly or indirectly, when His will is the ultimate will in the universe and sin has to be destroyed then it is His will sin is destroyed.

God destroys sin.

My understanding is:

When God switches on His Glory, sin is turned off, (figuratively).

Mark :-)

[Lutz13]

That is the point Lutz. :-)

[Guest]

Sin does not destroy itself. That simply is not Biblical.

[Guest]

They that minister must be holy, pure, and without blemish, or God will destroy them. God has not changed. He is just as holy and pure, just as particular, as He ever was. {EW 102}

[Guest]

Thus God will destroy the wicked from off the earth. {PP 110}

[Twilight]

Thus God will destroy the wicked from off the earth. {PP 110}

I too would have to read that quite literally...

Unless I was given a biblical reason not to.

Mark :-)

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Thus God will destroy the wicked from off the earth. {PP 110}

I too would have to read that quite literally...

Unless I was given a biblical reason not to.

Mark :-)

Cool, then God told Amnon to rape Tamar, and God told Absalom to murder Amnon and go against David. Oh, He also had Absalom go into all of Davids concubines in front of all Israel. Since we are reading everything as literal...

[Guest]

So then, nothing in the whole Bible is literal as far as you can tell. Right?

[Lutz13]

So then, nothing in the whole Bible is literal as far as you can tell. Right?

Did I say that?

[Guest]

When does something become literal then? And who decides when it is and when it isn't?

[Lutz13]

When does something become literal then? And who decides when it is and when it isn't?

Does God ever change Richard? Am I able to take His word when He says, " I change not" or am I able to trust the text that says "Jesus Christ the same yesterday today and forever." Can I trust those?

[Guest]

He dosn't change, but his role does, and this is the part you fail to comprehend. And by doing such, you misrepresent his character.

many would be led to believe that the threatenings of God's word would not be literally fulfilled; for it would be against his character of benevolence and love,.... Satan has led them to another extreme, to entirely overlook the justice of God, and the threatenings in his Word, and represent him as being all mercy, {1SG 115}

[Lutz13]

He dosn't change, but his role does, and this is the part you fail to comprehend. And by doing such, you misrepresent his character.

many would be led to believe that the threatenings of God's word would not be literally fulfilled; for it would be against his character of benevolence and love,.... Satan has led them to another extreme, to entirely overlook the justice of God, and the threatenings in his Word, and represent him as being all mercy, {1SG 115}

So according to you, He does indeed change? Yes?

[Guest]

Did you not even read the quote?

[Lutz13]

Did you not even read the quote?

Indeed I did Richard, and my view supports it 100%. When God told David "I will cause" it literally happened didn't it?

[Guest]

Many regard the threatenings of the Bible as designed merely to frighten men into obedience, and not to be literally fulfilled....Such a doctrine, presuming upon God's mercy, but ignoring His justice, pleases the carnal heart {GC88 537}

You're saying God will literally destroy the wicked, but he dosn't really do it. It's all Satan's doing no matter what God says in the Bible and SoP.