Did Saul sin? (Aside from the main Destruction of Wicked).

[Twilight]

That's pretty straight forward Mark. I do not believe God sinned, therefore when God kills, it is for good reason, and not a sin.

That is the charge being laid against God here Richard by some.

The charge is:

If God kills, God sins.

I would not want to be wrong on that one!

That would be doing the very work of Satan, whilst claiming to extol our Lords character.

I think a little humility would be good when making such bold claims.

This teaching could be one of the most damaging ever to come into the Adventist church.

If it is the truth I ask God to show me.

But all I have seen so far is interpretation of evidence, representation of a viewpoint.

I am deeply saddened. :-(

Mark

[Twilight]

Mark, your question has already been answered. Did u miss it? These civil statutes concerning the wars of Israel were given by Jesus Christ in the context of the theocracy, remember? The Israelites had elected the sword to defend themselves but Christ did not abandon them to their fate. Had He done so they would have been destroyed completely. They also used the sword to solve any rebellion in the camp. God in His mercy gave them instructions accordingly. He was willing to go the second mile with them. Just as the civil statute "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" was a civil statute to limit the evil consequences of having adopted their way instead of God's way. See M.B.70.

sky

That does not answer the question at all Sky.

I am sorry, but it does not.

God ordered Israel to kill.

However we butter that up, it was still Gods will that they should be destroyed.

His express active will.

No amount of "it was really Israels fault" type arguments can get away from the simple fact.

God ordered the Israelites to kill.

If it is a sin to kill.

God ordered them to sin.

God sinned.

Mark

[Guest]

I see your point Mark. God is being called something he is not.

[skyblue888]

Regarding #279936, that was a very nice explanation (by nice I mean well written and clear).

Thanks pnatttmbtc

i can use some encouragement along the way

Praise God!

sky

[Twilight]

Picture it like this:

God says to Israel.

Do not steal.

Then tells Saul.

Go to the Amelakites, sneek into their city and steal their gold statue.

Now would Saul be guilty of stealing?

Yes.

Would God be guilty of stealing?

Yes, He condoned it.

He planned it and ordered it.

-----------------------------

If a Prime Minister was in court because he had ordered one of his secret service agents to assasinate another countries Leader, would he get away with:

"I am dealing with corrupt people, so I am not responsible for the order I gave"...?

----------------------------

Now how is that any different to what God actually did do?

If of course we believe that God sins when He orders destruction and killing...

Mark

[nuff sed]

It's sorta like this.......... Once a month I sit in a patrol car with a deputy running a radar gun... As soon as the radar gun registers 22 miles over the speed limit off we go with siren screaming at 85 mph to catch the perpetrator going 72 mph. How come we can go 85? Are we breaking the law?? Nope....As the deputy says, We "ARE" the Law. It does not apply to us. Is God the "Law"? Does it apply to us but not to Him? Something to think about......

[skyblue888]

Would not saying that be bringing God down to the level of finite men? God does not go in hot pursuits against those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas. It is true that the powers that be are instituted of God but it is not to be taken that the way they enforce their laws represent how God enforces His. It is Satan who tempts to sin and it is him who is most interested in catching the sinner red handed so that he may accuse him, prosecute him, and execute him.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

How else can you look at this plain statement?

Exactly as Sky explained. It's the same principle as God's directions in other areas, such as divorce. Should we conclude that God is in favor of divorce because through Moses the Israelites were given instructions allowing it? No, because this only happened because of the hardness of their hearts. Had they been willing to follow God, there would never have been any divorce. Similarly, God never gave them weapons to destroy their enemies with. God's way is not to obtain victory by way of the sword. That's not the way His kingdom works. Christ made that as clear as anyone possibly could. When Peter tried to defend him with a sword, Christ told him to put it away. To Pilate He said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, My servants would fight."

The big mistake, IMO, in this study is not to take an approach which is likely to lead to a successful outcome. The SOP tells us that no truth in Scripture can be understood apart from the cross; that is the truth around which all other truths cluster. Also she speaks of how the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God (she quotes John to establish this point). She tells us that there is nothing we can know of God which was not revealed by Jesus Christ in the flesh (2T 816).

So what did Jesus Christ reveal? *That* should be the starting point. Especially what did the cross reveal?

Excellent. The life of Christ revealed that God is not the executioner of the sentence against transgression. When the disciples urged Him to destroy the inhabitants of Samaria by calling fire to come down out of heaven upon them He shocked the disciples by tellling them they did not know by what spirit they were actuated.

John the Baptist had the same misunderstanding. Him who was the forerunner of Christ expected that when He would come He would reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire! Do not many teach the same thing today?

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Did God directly cause the flood or did it happen because He could no longer prevent it from happening?

I'd like some clarification on this.

There is, and as soon as I can, I will share with you what I have come to understand caused the flood.

sky

[John317]

I agree with you, but I think the illustration shows there's reason to believe that God's taking of human life is not murder.

The law of God against murder was given for man and is for man in the human condition. While it expresses God's character of love, we shouldn't think that the law was made in order to govern God. For instance, God would have been in the right if He had allowed the whole world to reap the consequences of Adam's sin. In order to be "right," God did not have to conform His behavior to the law against murder. Jesus didn't come to earth for any other reason than God's love for humanity. God's destroying the whole world by Flood wouldn't have been a violation of any law. Why not? Because the law is not above God as the law is above humans.

For us humans, the law defines right and wrong. For God, on the other hand, right and wrong is defined by God Himself alone on the basis of His character and will.

[Twilight]

I agree with you, but I think the illustration shows there's reason to believe that God's taking of human life is not murder.

The law of God against murder was given for man and is for man in the human condition. While it expresses God's character of love, we shouldn't think that the law was made in order to govern God. For instance, God would have been in the right if He had allowed the whole world to reap the consequences of Adam's sin. In order to be "right," God did not have to conform His behavior to the law against murder. Jesus didn't come to earth for any other reason than God's love for humanity. God's destroying the whole world by Flood wouldn't have been a violation of any law. Why not? Because the law is not above God as the law is above humans.

For us humans, the law defines right and wrong. For God, on the other hand, right and wrong is defined by God Himself alone on the basis of His character and will.

Interesting point.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Gail

I'd like some clarification on this.

There is' date=' and as soon as I can, I will share with you what I have come to understand caused the flood.

sky [/quote']

Gail, here is the clarification you asked for based on Scripture and the SoP. I don't know if it will make sense to you but it sure does me.

God bless as you read.

I will now attempt to show from the Bible and the SoP the conditions that existed prior to the flood and what caused it. Even if there was no such evidence in the Bible or in the SoP, I would still know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the flood did not happen by the direct decree of God anymore than the desctruction of Jerusalem came as a result of a direct decree of God. See G.C.35,36,28. How do I know this? Simply because His servant the prophet has clearly stated that "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown." "The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." G.C.36.

This is what happened at the time of the flood for "the principles of His dealing with men are ever the same." G.C.343.

In the report of the flood God has given us sufficient evidence in various parts of the Bible to establish the way in which the flood did come. The study of this great cataclysm will be taken up from this angle.

When it is seen what caused the flood and how it came, powerful confirmation will be given to the truth that God does not execute the sinner nor destroy the earth. Far from actually sending the flood, God held it back as long as He could. It finally came because He could no longer prevent it without forcing His presence where it was no longer desired.

To be continued.

sky

* Gail are you following this? please let me know!

Note by Moderator: The rest of the posts by sky on the Flood may be found on a different thread, titled, "A Discussion of the Cause of the Flood." Please go there to post replies to this subject. Thanks. And thank you, Sky.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: John317

I agree with you, but I think the illustration shows there's reason to believe that God's taking of human life is not murder.

The law of God against murder was given for man and is for man in the human condition. While it expresses God's character of love, we shouldn't think that the law was made in order to govern God. For instance, God would have been in the right if He had allowed the whole world to reap the consequences of Adam's sin. In order to be "right," God did not have to conform His behavior to the law against murder. Jesus didn't come to earth for any other reason than God's love for humanity. God's destroying the whole world by Flood wouldn't have been a violation of any law. Why not? Because the law is not above God as the law is above humans.

For us humans, the law defines right and wrong. For God, on the other hand, right and wrong is defined by God Himself alone on the basis of His character and will.

Interesting point.

The commandment is not, "Thou shalt not kill".

Hebrew has a generic word for ending human life; it is not used in the commandment.

What is used is the Hebrew "rasah" - specifically, to murder. The commandment is, "Thou shalt not murder". There is a huge difference in character in this action over and above the generic ending of life found elsewhere.

Christ clarified the murder commandment by declaring those who are angry with their brethren are guilty of breaking that commandment (Matt. 5:21, 22).

Hence, murder must have the element of sinful anger/hate associated with it.

So...does God's actions and character fall into this category, or not?

[skyblue888]

Post #1 280300 Post #2 280301 Post #3 280321

Post # 4 The Flood

"In the days of Noah a double curse was resting upon the earth in consequence of Adam's transgression and of the murder committed by Cain. Yet this had not greatly changed the face of nature. There were evident tokens of decay, but the earth was still rich and beautiful in the gifts of God's providence. The hills were crowned with majestic trees supporting the fruit-laden branches of the vine. The vast, gardenlike plains were clothed with verdure, and sweet with the fragrance of a thousand flowers. The fruits of the earth were in great variety, and almost without limit. The trees far surpassed in size, beauty, and perfect proportion any now to be found; their wood was of fine grain and hard substance, closely resembling stone, and hardly less enduring. Gold, silver, and precious stones existed in abundance." P.P.90.

The great, scientific minds of that day could prove mathematically that no rain was possible because of the continued generation of heat by the sun during the day and the moon by night. They also boldly declared, as scientists do today, that the sun would continue its radiation of heat energy for millions of years yet. Like the Pharaoh as yet unborn, they had lost sight of the essential knowledge that nature is not self-acting but requires the continued presence, control, and sustenance of God.

"The laws of nature are not self-acting. Nature in her work testifies of the intelligent Presence and active Agency of a Being who moves in all things according to His will." M.H.416.

"The world before the Flood reasoned that for centuries the laws of nature had been fixed. The recurring seasons had come in their order. Heretofore rain had never fallen; the earth had been watered by a mist or dew. The rivers had never yet passed their boundaries, but had borne their waters safely to the sea. Fixed decrees had kept the waters from overflowing their banks. But these reasoners did not recognize the hand of Him who had stayed the waters, saying, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further." Job 38:11.

As time passed on, with no apparent change in nature, men whose hearts had at times trembled with fear, began to be reassured. They reasoned, as many reason now, that nature is above the God of nature, and that her laws are so firmly established that God Himself could not change them. Reasoning that if the message of Noah were correct, nature would be turned out of her course, they made that message, in the minds of the world, a delusion--a grand deception. They manifested their contempt for the warning of God by doing just as they had done before the warning was given. They continued their festivities and their gluttonous feasts; they ate and drank, planted and builded, laying their plans in reference to advantages they hoped to gain in the future; and they went to greater lengths in wickedness, and in defiant disregard of God's requirements, to testify that they had no fear of the Infinite One. They asserted that if there were any truth in what Noah had said, the men of renown--the wise, the prudent, the great men--would understand the matter." P.P.96,97

For the first time ever, rain fell, beginning its torrential and incessant downpour seven days after the closing of the door. Thus the change came suddenly. Up to a certain day, it had never rained. With the advent of that day, it rained, not gently and then increasingly, but in an absolute deluge.

The water literally dropped out of the sky. At the same time, mighty undergound supplies burst forth out of all control.

But this change could not occur unless firstly, changes had taken place in the sun and moon. There is only one way in which rain can come. Suspended water vapour must cool down to condensation point. There was only one way for the water vapour in suspension above the earth to be chilled and that was for the moon and sun to begin to wane in heat production. This they did. The moon went out altogether and the sun faded to one seventh of its former brightness.

Suddenly, the vast volume of water vapour up there found itself deprived of seven-eighths of the heat it had been receiving. Rapidly the heat energy was exhausted in the work of keeping the vapour suspended. Chilling followed. Then came condensation. Practically all the water that had been taken from earth to sky by God's direct power on the second day of creation, was returned through natural causes during those forty days and nights.

So great is the power of God that He could speak into position a volume of water which took forty days and nights to return by its own power. The result was that for the second time the earth became completely flooded with water. Not a trace of dry land showed anywhere.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Post # 4 280331

Post # 5 The Flood

The first appearance of rain in Noah's day is positive proof that it was then that the extinguishing of the moon and the dimming of the sun took place. Confirmation of this is provided by both Isaiah and Peter. The evidence from Isaiah has already been quoted. Here it is again:

"Morever the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of His people, and healeth the stroke of their wound." Isaiah 30:26.

This text supplies the proof that the sun was reduced in brightness and the moon went out at the time of the flood, for, the promise that the sun and the moon will be restored will be fulfilled.

A healing is the restoring to an original condition. If, in this healing work, the sun and moon are to be brought back to what they were, then it had to be at the making of the breach and the wounding that the sun and moon suffered their reductions. So it is only necessary to determine when the breach was made and the stroke administered, to know when the sun and moon were depleted of their powers.

There is only one point of time when a great stroke was delivered against mankind which produced a terrible breach on human population and that was at the flood. So great was the stroke and the resulting breach in the human family that total extermination almost resulted. God has promised to restore that which was lost but not those who were lost.

There have been many minor stokes made against humanity, but none of these compare with the great flood and the damage it caused. The time is coming though, when that will be restored. The sun will come back to seven times its brightness and the moon will become as bright as the sun is today, thus re-establishing the earth to its pre-flood state.

What caused the sun and the moon to lose their powers is a question yet to be determined, but the answer will come as we proceed. Firstly, some considerations must be given to New Testament evidences that great changes did take place at the flood.

to be continued

[Guest]

sky, you have hijacked this thread from "Did Saul Sin?" To "The Flood."

[skyblue888]

I'm sorry brother but I haven't, I simply replied to Gail's request. This happens all the time. And as far as I know no one suggested to start a new thread when Gail asked for clarification concerning what caused the flood. Re post # 279989

sky

[Woody]

I agree. Yes ... but when it happens ... we are all subject to criticism then. So life goes on at CA

[Stewart (SDA)]

It is my view also Sky, that the people who lived prior to the flood were capable of doing things that would disturb the fine balances of the earth.

"In strength of intellect, men who now live can bear no comparison to the ancients. There have been more ancient arts lost than the present generation now possess. For skill and art those living in this degenerate age will not compare with the knowledge possessed by strong men who lived near one thousand years. (1BC 1089.8)

The arts referred to by Mrs. White were not things like painting and carving.

[Guest]

Only one problem with that.

[oldsailor29]

I would have to answer this question,yes. King Saul sinned a lot. Disobeying God's instructions to kill was sin. Killing the prophets of God was also sin. Oppressing the witches was sin. And consulting one was also sin. Whenever Saul did not follow Samuel's guidance, it was sin. Before he died, Samuel prophesied the death of Saul. When Saul consulted the medium, the being represented as Samuel added Saul's sons to the previous prophecy of death. This is why I say a dead Prophet of God is more powerful than a live king. And while it is true that without God there is no life after death, we are not without God.

And by the way, the Lord creates and the Lord destroys, and the Lord can restore that which He has destroyed. His teachings for us in our finite world do not apply to Him. "Thou shalt not kill," is for us.

He also made the Sabbath for us, not for Himself. Jesus said He works every day. And if we are working for God on the Sabbath, we are not breaking the Sabbath commandment.

Preachers, teachers, evangelists, and healers are not the only people who are working for God. The body has many parts of equal importance. All who have dedicated their lives to God are working for Him. All who are doing that which the Lord has given them to do are working for Him.

Yes, Saul sinned, by not following God's instructions given specifically to him. And while I am rambling, I might as well throw in that what we are and what we do are two different things. We are sinners. We are addicted to sin. Our natures are sinful. However, we can overcome sin. We can abstain from it. We can get on the wagon and follow God's "10 step" program. If we do that, are we still sinners? Most assuredly we are. The whole wagon we are on is full of sinners. Some of us fall off the wagon now and then.

I think I have said enough for now.

[Stewart (SDA)]

What is the problem that you see with that Richard?

stewart.

[skyblue888]

That's right Stewart.

"There perished in the Flood greater inventions of art and human skill than the world kmows of today. The arts destroyed were more than the boasted arts of today." Letter 65,1898.

"Men before the flood lived many hundred years, and when one hundred years old they were considered but youths. Those long-lived men had sound minds in sound bodies Their mental and physical strength was so great that the present feeble generation can bear no resemblance to them. Those ancients had nearly one thousand years to acquire knowledge. They came upon the stage of action from the ages of sixty to one hundred years, about the time those who now live the longest have acted their part in their little short life time, and have passed off the stage." 4 SG 154-156.

"Those who lived before the Flood came forth with their giant-like stature, more than twice as tall as men now living upon the earth, and well proportioned. The generation after the Flood were less in stature." 3 SG 84.

"If men could only know how many arts have been lost to our world, they would not talk so fuently of the dark ages. Could they have seen how God once worked through His human subjects, they would speak with less confidence of the arts of the antediluvian world. More was lost in the Flood, in many ways, than men today know." Leter 24,1899.

I would like you to tell us now what you inferred by that as far as how the flood came about.

thanks

sky

[Guest]

What is the problem that you see with that Richard?

stewart.

The Bible says God did it. So does EGW.

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: Stewart (SDA)

What is the problem that you see with that Richard?

stewart.

The Bible says God did it. So does EGW.

The bible also says God killed Saul. And caused Amnon to rape Tamar, and caused Absalom to murder Amnon and rebel against David. God said He would cause it to happen.