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

[skyblue888]

Nobody here is denying that God's judgments are to be visited upon the earth. Can you name us just one who is doing this here?

It is the HOW Richard that is being discussed here.

Richard, we know that you know that and yet you seem to be ignoring this all the time.

Why Richard?

sky

[Guest]

You preach that Satan destroys the wicked, because God is to passive to ever do such a thing. This is contrary to the Bible and SOP.

Why sky, why?

[Twilight]

Speaking as moderator:

sky, I appreciate what you've written about the Flood, and I intend to read all of it carefully. But in the meantime, I'm going to begin a thread on that subject and will use your first post on the topic as the beginning post.

Could you copy those posts and move them to the other thread? After you've moved them there, I will delete them from this thread. Then we can have an uninterrupted discussion of that important, interesting question without hijacking the thread about Saul.

Thank you.

Thank you John and Sky. :-)

[Twilight]

I notice that non of the people that advocate that God does not destroy have answered the main question yet?

Did Saul sin by obeying God when he killed?

Mark

[Twilight]

This is fundamental to the discussion.

I think the fact this question has gone unanswered shows the weakness of the theory that God does not destroy.

Because clearly, in this instance, He destroyed through the person of Saul.

That is evident.

So if He destroyed through the agency of Saul, then He does indeed destroy.

If not, He commanded Saul to sin.

And we know that God does not do that.

So the only options left are:

1. The scripture is wrong.

2. God does destroy.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

As no one wants to step forward and answer this question...

Here is something else to consider.

God ordering destruction:

Under God the angels are all-powerful. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they slew of the Assyrian army in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men.--DA 700 (1898). {LDE 243.2}

1. These angels are under the command of God.

2. It was Christ's direct command that they slew the Assyrian army.

[Twilight]

And this one puts it all finally to bed:

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his

244

sin was punished. 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 let us consider that plain simple statement:

The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands

Which angels?

Holy angels.

What power?

Destructive power.

Commanded by whom?

God.

will be exercised by evil angels when He permits.

And here we see the other principle that has been presented as the "only" principle.

Yet this plain statement puts the whole matter to rest.

God permits destruction.

God also orders destruction.

Mark

[Guest]

Under God the angels are all-powerful. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they slew of the Assyrian army in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men.--DA 700 (1898). {LDE 243.2}

But they told me God would never do that.

[Twilight]

The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod. The angel smote Peter to arouse him from slumber. It was with a different stroke that he smote the wicked king, laying low his pride and bringing upon him the punishment of the Almighty. Herod died in great agony of mind and body, under the retributive judgment of God.--AA 152 (1911). {LDE 243.3}

Hmmm...

Let him read how to Peter, in prison and condemned to death, God's angel appeared; how, past the armed guards, the massive doors and great iron gateway with their bolts and bars, the angel led God's servant forth in safety.

Peter was brought forth and cast into prison but God sent His angel to deliver him. The prison doors flew open at the presence of this mighty angel. The bands of Peter were loosed. He was awakened by the touch of the angel, and Peter was amazed because of the light. He could not understand it but thought that he saw a vision. The angel requested him to gird himself and put on his sandals. Peter was so astonished that he thought not of his garments. God always has a care for the true and faithful, and He sent His messengers from heaven and opened the gates and set His servant free. Prayers had been made in Peter's behalf. They expected that he would have to suffer death, and when they heard his voice at the gate they were astonished.

-97- {3MR 96.1}

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

What I find very revealing is that those that deny God the right to destroy have not answered this simple question:

Did Saul sin when he killed those he was ordered to?

Yes or no?

I think the avoidance of this question highlights the weakness of the theory.

Mark :-)

That question has already been answered in a previous post. Saul did sin by not obeying the command perfectly.

That is not answering the question Sky.

Would it have been a sin for Saul to kill when God ordered it.

Yes or no?

The parable does not deal with this question at all.

Mark

[Guest]

If it was a sin not to do it, then there's no way it could have been a sin to do it.

[Twilight]

If it was a sin not to do it, then there's no way it could have been a sin to do it.

Indeed.

Yet the silence on this point as on other points that contradicat a belief system indicate something very interesting, which I hope we will be able to discuss at some point in the near future. :-)

[skyblue888]

Mark, your assumptions are faulty. You cannot read these statements aright because your understanding has been darkened simply because you are disregarding one ray of light here and another ray of light there. And you know exactly what I mean. The statements you have read use the exact same language that is consistently used throughout Scripture and Mrs. White uses that language too but in the Bible and in her writings are found other statements explaining how this language is to be understood. This you are totally ignoring.

sky

[Twilight]

Mark, your assumptions are faulty. You cannot read these statements aright because your understanding has been darkened simply because you are disregarding one ray of light here and another ray of light there. And you know exactly what I mean. The statements you have read use the exact same language that is consistently used throughout Scripture and Mrs. White uses that language too but in the Bible and in her writings are found other statements explaining how this language is to be understood. This you are totally ignoring.

sky

What if it is your understanding that has been darkened Sky?

Because you are disregarding a ray of light here and there?

From what I can see, the position you are presenting requires that certain rays of light be "re-interpreted" under the guise of "not understanding biblical language".

You are stating what you yourself have been doing.

Your position only accepts those texts that agree with one statement that has somehow been set up as the ultimate statement on the subject.

All other texts have to be re-interpreted.

This is what the JW's do.

This is their type of theology.

It should not have a place in Adventist circles.

Mark

[skyblue888]

Fine Mark, have it your way. If I may say, I beliee you are way too smart for your own good. You are placing your own ideas above the revealed principles of God's dealing with sin which are ever the same.

No offense but I will no longer debate with you personally as long as you refuse to continue to ignore what has already been revealed and that is 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." G.C.35.

This principle is always the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

sky

[Guest]

You are placing your own ideas above the revealed principles of God's dealing with sin which are ever the same.

No he's not. You have taken EGW quotes out of context and made them your foundation, or pillar of your belief. Then you place them above scripture and say: "This is how we have to interpret all scripture, and if you don't use my method, (foundation, pillar) then you're in the dark."

That's just nonsense.

[teresaq]

You have taken EGW quotes out of context and made them your foundation, or pillar of your belief. Then you place them above scripture and say: "This is how we have to interpret all scripture, and if you don't use my method, (foundation, pillar) then you're in the dark."

hmmm, would this be another example of the pot calling the kettle black? :smile:

[skyblue888]

No Richard, what the pen of inspiration says is that if we disregard this one ray of light (any ray of light for that matter) there will be a benumbing of the spiritual perceptions and the second revealing will be less clearly discerned. That's what the Lord says, not me. And if we persist in unbelief the darkness will increase until it is night in the soul.

But before you go any further, I would suggest that you and Mark read the book Behold Your God. Then you come back and continue the discussion. Please read that book. You will see it is worth reading, every page and every line of every page of that book.

sky

http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1891

[Guest]

If that's what made you go off the rails, I want no part of it. I'll stick to using the Bible when it come to forming doctrines.

I did find the book "Lessons From the Reformation" by A.T. Jones at that website though.

Also a good one by Samuel Koranteng Pipim called "Recieving the Word"

I promptly downloaded both of them. That is a good website, but one needs to be careful what they read.

[skyblue888]

What website did u go to to find Lessons from the Reformation?

sky

* It will be your own loss if you refuse to read that book. You will regret it. Forget about me. Just give it a try. You will see what I mean Richard.

[Guest]

Maranathamedia.com

Go to collections, and you will see his books and Waggoner's.

[skyblue888]

Maranathamedia.com

Go to collections, and you will see his books and Waggoner's.

I'm on the home page right now of the site and I don't see anything that says "Collections" and do we have to register?

sky

[Guest]

I don't know, but I did.

[skyblue888]

Okay I found it now. You need to click on "books" first before you can get access to "collections"

Im glad you have access to Lessons From the Reformation. It is a great book to say the very least of it.

Thanks for sharing that link with us.

sky

[Guest]

Here is the link to collections.

http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=142