Is destruction inevitable by a loving Creator?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I have no problem accepting that this is indeed a spiritual principle in a context.

But it also has to be balanced by every other statement on the subject.

Like:

The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere.--GC 614 (1911). {LDE 243.4}

Now what I am not willing to do, is to accept that this statement and this statement alone is the expression of Gods Character and actions...

That would not be correct according to the biblical method of interpretation.

Why can you not see that Sky?

_____________________________

What I see is that when "God commands" is when He tells His holy angels to no longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. That is one thing. We have covered this aspect many times on the threads. And then I see the other aspect, that the evil angels destroy when God permits. He does not command the evil angels to destroy or He does not say to the evil angels, No longer combat the holy angels in their efforts to protect!

sky

[/quote']

I know you "see" that Sky.

But that is not what the statement says.

The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere.--GC 614 (1911). {LDE 243.4}

If it did it would have to say:

The same way the good angels hold back destruction is the same way the evil angels hold back destruction.

Mark

PS

If I did not love you deeply, I would not be laboring this with you.

I have other things I can be doing.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

As to when the Lord gave direct command to Moses to kill we have already discussed that and the answer is clear. These commands to kill were given under the Theocracy and they were civil statutes in harmony with the fact that the Israelites had not enough faith to let God deliver them in righteousness. So the Lord in His mercy gave them instructions in harmony with the fact that they had chosen to elect the sword as their means of defending themselves against their enemies and to solve problems within the camp. God went the second mile with them. And that is how the Lord gave also instructions like "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" and "life for life." But the same Jesus who had given these instructions to them, when He walked this earth, He said, You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye" but I say unto you... you know the rest of the story.

So this shows that these instructions given in the Old Testament were not in harmony with God's ways of destroying but in harmony with man's ways.

sky

If it is a sin for God to kill.

It is a sin for God to hire an "assassin" to kill.

You cannot have your cake and eat it my friend.

God commanded Saul to kill.

If your position is correct.

God ordered Saul to sin.

God sinned.

No Saul did not sin. This case is discussed by the apostle Paul in Romans 13 when he speaks of the powers that be, the civil authorities. They too are instituted of God and they too have chosen the sword to defend themselves against their enemies and within their own jurisdiction. It is not a sin on the part of the civil authorities to punish murder by capital punishment. It is not a sin for them to use to sword. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Rom.13:1-5.

sky

[teresaq]

The difficult part where it clearly says Gods angels destroy, you have no choice other than to say that it is covered by the second part. Thus redifining a plain statement by twisting it to fit the half of the truth you have accepted.

You have taken one edge of a double edged sword and tried to slice Gods word in half with it.

I believe you are sincere in your belief of this error.

But it does not stop it being error.

Just read the statement as it stands.

according to you.

dont you see that it is really understanding versus understanding?

you understand that paragraph one way, others are taking the surrounding paragraphs and other statements into consideration.

it is just ones understanding versus anothers understanding.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

mark, how does this tie in with the bible and sop statements?

this sounds very much along the lines of spiritualism. correct me if i misunderstand you. [/quote']

Quite nicely when we study it out...

I would of course discuss that if you were interested in examining it, at some point in the future.

Right now would not be a good time, because I do not sense you could receive anything I said at the moment, from the general subdued hostility of your posts.

well that is an interesting tactic to use.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

If it is a sin for God to kill.

It is a sin for God to hire an "assassin" to kill.

You cannot have your cake and eat it my friend.

God commanded Saul to kill.

If your position is correct.

God ordered Saul to sin.

God sinned. [/quote']

No Saul did not sin. This case is discussed by the apostle Paul in Romans 13 when he speaks of the powers that be, the civil authorities. They too are instituted of God and they too have chosen the sword to defend themselves against their enemies and within their own jurisdiction. It is not a sin on the part of the civil authorities to punish murder by capital punishment. It is not a sin for them to use to sword. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Rom.13:1-5.

sky

So then.

If it is not a sin for Saul to kill.

It is not a sin for God to order Saul to kill.

And if it is for God to order a death, it is not a sin for God to destroy.

And if it is not a sin for God to destroy it is not against His Character to destroy.

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The difficult part where it clearly says Gods angels destroy, you have no choice other than to say that it is covered by the second part. Thus redifining a plain statement by twisting it to fit the half of the truth you have accepted.

You have taken one edge of a double edged sword and tried to slice Gods word in half with it.

I believe you are sincere in your belief of this error.

But it does not stop it being error.

Just read the statement as it stands.

according to you.

dont you see that it is really understanding versus understanding?

you understand that paragraph one way, others are taking the surrounding paragraphs and other statements into consideration.

it is just ones understanding versus anothers understanding.

How can I read it to say anything other than it says Teresa?

It says Gods angels destroy and Satans angels destroy.

And that is in context.

I am not adding or taking anything away from it.

This agrees with statements in scripture.

This agrees with statements in SOP.

But people are trying to say it should be read another "way".

Why?

There is absolutely no reason to.

It is as plain as all the noses on all our faces.

Why would we want to make it read anything other than it says?

Or do we drown the heretic who says it says what it says? :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I am saying that Christ reveals God eternally.

That the years as the Lamb of God is not a full revealing of Gods Character, in the sense that certain aspects of Gods Character, shadowed through the different roles of Christ were not shown.

Christ however revealed enough of Gods character at the cross for a man to be saved.

If the man receives it.

I would not dare to suggest that a man can look at Jesus' life during those 3 1/2 years and be able to "measure" God.

That is my understanding.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. The SOP statement says that all that man can know of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the context being specifically when He took flesh (i.e. during the incarnation).

It's interesting how we focus on different texts as our "bedrock" or "foundation." Certain ones we "keep" while those we disagree with we interpret to fit with our understanding. I'm by no means singling you out here, nor saying I don't do this. I think we all do it. We just choose different texts as the ones we agree with as they read, and different ones to "interpret."

(Some people don't think they do this, but I think that's rather naive --just my opinion.)

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

are you reading the words "in the same way" into this statement?

in other words do you see the unfallen angels destroying in the same way that fallen angels destroy? [/quote']

I am reading it as it states.

Not adding or taking away.

It is not needed, the statement is so plain.

The same destructive power exercised by holy angels.... will be exercised by evil angels.

So I do not need the addition you suggest I need.

Mark :-)

do you see the unfallen angels destroying in the same way that fallen angels destroy was the question.

i assume from your answer that for you it is as plain as the nose on ones face?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

well that is an interesting tactic to use.

Tactics are only used when one wants to win a battle.

That is not my interest here.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

do you see the unfallen angels destroying in the same way that fallen angels destroy was the question.

i assume from your answer that for you it is as plain as the nose on ones face?

I see that Gods angels destroy.

That satans angels destroy.

If Gods angels did not destroy it would not need to state it.

The statement would read:

The destructive power exercised will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere.--GC 614 (1911). {LDE 243.4}

But I would need to take something away to read it like that.

Instead it simply says this:

The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere.--GC 614 (1911). {LDE 243.4}

I could only be guilty of twisting it or changing it if I removed something or added something to it.

That is not the case.

It is accepted as it stands.

It does not need to be changed, unless the idea expressed is not true.

Mark

[skyblue888]

The point Mark is that the order from God to kill was not God's way to destroy. It was according to man's way, according to the way of the sword.

God simply went the second mile with them.

If it had been left to God to "destroy" these nations who had filled their cup of iniquity, the Israelites would never have had to fight against them in the first place and God would never had given them such an instruction.

sky

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

interesting accusations.

what proof do you have for these?

i mean we shouldnt go around throwing out accusations unless we have some basis for them.

so what basis, what proof, do you have that your statements are true?

The whole discussion on these threads should be proof enough Teresa.

One absurd teaching after another has risen out of this idea that God does not destroy.

We are right to examine it and study it out, but when it clearly contradicts scripture it is to be discarded.

If not, it will lead into all sorts of error.[/quote']so your statements are really based on how you understand the issues and what you see as error?

Quote:

If you are looking for an argument Teresa, I am not your man. :-)

hmmmm, asking you to back up your accusations is looking for a fight?

[Twilight]

The point Mark is that the order from God to kill was not God's way to destroy. It was according to man's way, according to the way of the sword.

God simply went the second mile with them.

If it had been left to God to "destroy" these nations who had filled their cup of iniquity, the Israelites would never have had to fight against them in the first place and God would never had given them such an instruction.

sky

The point is Sky that God ordered man to kill.

Therefore God is responsible for those deaths.

That is the point.

[teresaq]

For these reasons:

This statement:

The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere.--GC 614 (1911). {LDE 243.4}

This "truth":

Saul was ordered to kill on Gods behalf.

These two alone should give you cause for concern.

...

But the accusation rests against these two (of very many others have posted), reasons not to accept this teaching you are presenting.

Not myself.

You can of course try to nullify these simple statements by saying "they do not mean what they say", but that is a choice I will not indulge in.

well ok, my brother, but the rest of us will continue to study and see if our understanding has been defective, ok?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

The point Mark is that the order from God to kill was not God's way to destroy. It was according to man's way, according to the way of the sword.

God simply went the second mile with them.

If it had been left to God to "destroy" these nations who had filled their cup of iniquity, the Israelites would never have had to fight against them in the first place and God would never had given them such an instruction.

sky

The point is Sky that God ordered man to kill.

Therefore God is responsible for those deaths.

That is the point.

Mark you are missing the point entirely.

sky

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The point is Sky that God ordered man to kill.

Therefore God is responsible for those deaths.

That is the point. [/quote']

Mark you are missing the point entirely.

sky

Did God order the deaths of the Amelakites Sky?

[skyblue888]

We are going in circles.

You know that I know that God ordered the death of the Amalekites Mark. The Amalekites had already decided their fate by filling their cup of iniquity. They had already forfeited God's protection and if the Israelites had allowed God to deal with them without the use of the sword they would have been destroyed by whatever danger lay closer to them.

Even in this case God was not the executioner of the sentence against the Amalekites.

sky

[Twilight]

We are going in circles.

You know that I know that God ordered the death of the Amalekites Mark. The Amalekites had already decided their fate by filling their cup of iniquity. They had already forfeited God's protection and if the Israelites had allowed God to deal with them without the use of the sword they would have been destroyed by whatever danger lay closer to them.

Even in this case God was not the executioner of the sentence against the Amalekites.

sky

So we agree on these two points:

1. Saul did not sin by killing.

2. God ordered those deaths.

So God orders Saul to kill the Amelakites.

But God did not "execute" the sentance, really?

We just have to face up to the simple fact that God destroyed the Amelakites.

By His direct intervention and order.

God destroyed through Saul.

God expressely ordered those deaths.

God destroyed.

And He did not sin when He did it.

God destroys sin and sinners.

Case closed.

Mark

[Lutz13]

We just have to face up to the simple fact that God destroyed the Amelakites.

By His direct intervention and order.

God destroyed through Saul.

God expressely ordered those deaths.

God destroyed.

And He did not sin when He did it.

God destroys sin and sinners.

Case closed.

Mark

Here you go. There is no denying this I suppose.

The lego version!

[skyblue888]

Mark you are using a syllogism. I learned about syllogisms in my first Philosophy class at the college. Do you see what the Holy Spirit means when He warned us that our religion would be changed and that a system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced to take the place of a Thus says the Lord!!!

Man's wisdom is foolishness to God.

sky

[Guest]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[Lutz13]

Quote:

We just have to face up to the simple fact that God destroyed the Amelakites.

By His direct intervention and order.

God destroyed through Saul. (Force)

God expressely ordered those deaths. (Force)

God destroyed. (Force)

And He did not sin when He did it.

God destroys sin and sinners. (Force)

Case closed. (Only in your mind.)

Mark

And yet you cannot hide the fact that your god uses force. The view that you hold, shows a god that uses force. SOP says that only one government uses such.

[skyblue888]

Amen.

[pnattmbtc]

I will dare to disagree with you on this.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

So you're saying basically that you don't know, right? So it sounds like you're open to the possibility that the view I'm presenting is correct? That is, I'm saying that Jesus Christ is the light of the glory of God who gives life to the righteous. He (or one could say God) is a consuming fire for the wicked, which destroys them. He does so not by literally setting them on fire, but because they have formed characters so out of harmony with Him and His principles that His mere presence is to them a consuming fire.

Given your answer, that you don't know what the fire is, it would seem to me this explanation should be possible, from your perspective. Is it? If not, please explain why not.

No I do not agree with your position.

Because I see no reason to move beyond the plain statements of scripture on this.

This is the point I was making above. :-)

I know this:

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.

I am not prepared to consider anything beyond this unless the Lord gives me revelation on the subject.

Mark :-)