A Discussion of the Cause of the Flood

[skyblue888]

"'Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.' 'The indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: He hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter.' 'Upon the wicked He shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone, and a horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.' Isaiah 9:5; 34:2; Psalm 11:6 (margin).

Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. [Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10.] The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men,—'the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion.' Isaiah 34:8; Proverbs 11:31.

"The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. They 'shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts.' Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished 'according to their deeds.' The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch,—Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah." The Great Controversy, 672, 673.

These texts and statements are familiar to Bible students. Invariably they have given a picture of God personally pouring down fire upon the wicked and thus bringing about their final end. This is no problem to the average person for he considers that God has a perfect right to destroy those who have rebelled against Him. Furthermore, he knows of no other way whereby the problem can be solved. The criminal must be executed or he will go on making trouble forever. Of course this is man's thinking but it is neither the thinking nor the way of God.

There is no difference in the language used in Revelation or The Great Controversy from that used in other parts of the Scriptures describing the outpouring of terrible judgments.

"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." Genesis 19:24

"And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." Exodus 7:3

"And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died." Numbers 21:6

"But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him." 1 Samuel 16:14

"But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." Matthew 22:7

We have already considered each of these statements from the Lord. It has been demonstrated that there must be a different definition of the terms and expressions used to describe the behaviour of men. Trouble is experienced in understanding these expressions in regard to God's character when no distinction is made between man's ways and God's ways.

Those previous studies into these verses confirmed the truth that when God pours out fire, sends serpents, or such like, it is not something dispensed from His hands as a response to His personal decree. Rather, it happens only when He is obliged to depart from the scene thus leaving matters in the hands of men and devils. Then, being out of His control, the rod of power descends in merciless power upon the defenceless heads of the self-willed.

There is no reason to suppose that these verses in Revelation are to be understood any differently. What those expressions mean throughout the remainder of the Scriptures they must still mean at the end of them. Therefore, in the end, God does not decree that the wicked shall die by fire and then set about executing this decree by personally exercising His power. God does not decree what punishment shall befall the evildoer. He foresees what will happen and foretells it. But He neither chooses nor organizes it to be just that way.

to be continued

[Guest]

A great work can be done by presenting to the people the Bible just as it reads. Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 388

If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error…. {DD 38}

If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says. {LHU 313}

[skyblue888]

I know that Mrs. White accepted the Bible just as it reads.

When Mrs. White quotes the words of God through Nathan the prophet saying to David, "I will raise up evil against you out of your own house," and then immediately proceeds to explain what these words mean by saying, "Not that God prompted these acts of wickedness, but because of David's sin, He did not exercise His power to prevent them," was she going against the very statements you just quoted?

sky

[Guest]

In David's case that was true, and you could reach that conclusion from studying the scripture, because you can see what happened. But to assume that you can say that God never means excactly what he says, is wrong headed. She never says that, and you won't find it in the Bible.

[skyblue888]

I have never said that God does not mean what He says. Did not God send a prophet to us to explain what He means by what He says? The case I just referred you too is just one of many cases where Mrs. White explains what God means by what He said. It is a principle of interprettation which can be applied any time similar language is used by God Himself which confirms the everlasting truth that God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression, before or after the 1000 years.

sky

[Guest]

Then why do you disregard her explanation of Rev. 20?

Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. {EW 294}

[pnattmbtc]

Neither the Bible nor the Spirit of Prophecy says that God will burn people alive in order to make them suffer to pay for their sins. The Bible doesn't say anything close to this.

The SOP says that the principles of "kindness, mercy, and love" as well as "love your enemies" will be followed by God in the judgment. She says God would make the wicked happy if He could!

God would make them happy! This is the wonderful, loving God of inspiration. A God who loves so much, He gives His all, even His only Son, for the good of those He loves. He doesn't stop loving them in the judgment, and He would still, in spite of all they done to Him, make them happy if He could. That's the kind of God He is.

[Guest]

You don't think the fire coming down from God out of heaven is even close?

[pnattmbtc]

No. Many interpret this as meaning that God will torment the lost for all eternity. We've got several different interpretations on this very forum. Even if you argued this was literal fire, and the wicked are being burned alive, you'd still have to show that the purpose of their being burned alive was to make them suffer to pay for their sins.

I don't understand how one wouldn't perceive this can't be right with just a moment's thought. It in no way corresponds to God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ.

[Twilight]

I know that Mrs. White accepted the Bible just as it reads.

When Mrs. White quotes the words of God through Nathan the prophet saying to David, "I will raise up evil against you out of your own house," and then immediately proceeds to explain what these words mean by saying, "Not that God prompted these acts of wickedness, but because of David's sin, He did not exercise His power to prevent them," was she going against the very statements you just quoted?

sky

The problem is when we take this principle, which is a valid one.

Then claim it is the ONLY valid principle.

And interpret the Bible by it, even when there is no reason to.

Why would we think this principle is a rule that all of Gods activities must fit into it?

Especially when other principles have been set forward to show this is error.

Like the description of Gods angels and satan both destroying.

The clear biblical language of God destroying through Saul.

Where does it say we are to take this principle and apply it every act of destruction Sky?

No one is denying the principle.

Just the use of it that is being made here.

As one all encompassing principle that must delete all other principles...

No matter how clearly they are expressed...

Mark

[Guest]

Amen! That's what I've been saying.

[pnattmbtc]

The problem is when we take this principle, which is a valid one.

[Twilight]

This isn't being claimed. It's being claimed this is the only valid principle in a certain context, the context being when God is presented as doing things contrary to His character, such as using violence or force.

Exactly.

That claim is false.

It is being claimed this is the only way that God destroys.

When clearly the SOP and Bible present this as one of two methods.

Indirect and direct.

I have noticed that when indirect is used, it often leads to the opportunity of repentance and reformation.

But when direct intervention is used.

That is it.

It is final.

Over.

Judgement time.

Mark

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

This isn't being claimed. It's being claimed this is the only valid principle in a certain context, the context being when God is presented as doing things contrary to His character, such as using violence or force.

Exactly.

That claim is false.

It is being claimed this is the only way that God destroys.

When clearly the SOP and Bible present this as one of two methods.

Indirect and direct.

I have noticed that when indirect is used, it often leads to the opportunity of repentance and reformation.

But when direct intervention is used.

That is it.

It is final.

Over.

Judgement time.

Mark

Over and Done. It's all through the Bible.

[pnattmbtc]

Me:This isn't being claimed. It's being claimed this is the only valid principle in a certain context, the context being when God is presented as doing things contrary to His character, such as using violence or force.

Mark:Exactly.

That claim is false.

"It's being claimed this is the only valid principle in a certain context, the context being when God is presented as doing things contrary to His character ..."

This part can't be false. That is, I'm assuming you can't be suggesting that God does things which are contrary to His character. Therefore the only alternative is that you don't see using force and violence to be contrary to God's character.

We have two ways, at least, of seeing that these *are* contrary to God's character.

1.The revelation of Jesus Christ of God's character.

2.Statements from the SOP that force is not a principle of God's government.

[Guest]

"The Word of God is the great detector of error; to it we believe

everything must be brought. The Bible must be our standard for every doctrine and practice. We

must study it reverentially. We are to receive no one's opinion without comparing it with the

Scriptures. Here is divine authority which is supreme in matters of faith. It is the Word of the

living God that is to decide all controversies" (The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 44, 45; cf.

The Great Controversy, p. 595).

[WayneV]

To All:

Question on the topic of this thread (not necessarily the topic of the last several pages). If God did not send the rains that caused the flood, why would He set His Bow in the heavens as a reminder of His promise to never do it again?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Me:This isn't being claimed. It's being claimed this is the only valid principle in a certain context, the context being when God is presented as doing things contrary to His character, such as using violence or force.

Mark:Exactly.

That claim is false.

"It's being claimed this is the only valid principle in a certain context, the context being when God is presented as doing things contrary to His character ..."

This part can't be false. That is, I'm assuming you can't be suggesting that God does things which are contrary to His character. Therefore the only alternative is that you don't see using force and violence to be contrary to God's character.

We have two ways, at least, of seeing that these *are* contrary to God's character.

1.The revelation of Jesus Christ of God's character.

2.Statements from the SOP that force is not a principle of God's government.

We also have a way to see that they are a part of Gods character.

1. Statement from the bible that God destroys through man and Angels.

2. Statements from the SOP that God destroys through man and Angels.

Are you not concerned that your position forces you to "re-read" certain texts in scripture so that they mean the exact opposite of what they say.

But the idea that God destroys and permits Satan destroys, require no such "re-reading"?

If I was personally presented with two doctrinal positions.

One required that plain statements had to be changed.

Another required that the bible be accepted as stated.

I would choose the second.

Does not the mere fact you have to change the plain meaning of Gods Word give you any cause for concern?

What would you do if a JW did this to prove their point?

Would you point out that the bible has to interpret itself?

Or would you say it is acceptable that the bible does not mean what it says?

Mark

[Gail]

To All:

Question on the topic of this thread (not necessarily the topic of the last several pages). If God did not send the rains that caused the flood, why would He set His Bow in the heavens as a reminder of His promise to never do it again?

Always nice to see you, Wayne! I hope that all is well

Good question about the rainbow

[Guest]

Yes indeed. It would be like God saying: I will never do again what I didn't do the first time.

[John317]

Yesterday I took the time to look closely at all of Jesus' parables having to do with what finally happens to the wicked.

Every single parable of Jesus that touches on the topic teaches that God destroys the wicked. His parables never say that the wicked kill each other or that they commit suicide. They are consistently "cast out," "thrown into the fire of gehenna," "burned up," "thrown into the furnace of fire," "thrown into outer darkness," "cut in pieces," "tortured," "rejected," "go away into eternal punishment," "condemned," etc.

I would ask everyone to study closely all the parables of Christ on this point.

1) Matt. 8: 12-- "cast out into outer darkness." (Compare Matt. 13: 42, 50)

Obviously God does the "casting."

2) Matt. 13: 30, 40. The landowner orders his servants to gather the tares and "burn them up" at the time of the harvest.

3) Matt. 13: 42-- tares are thrown into the furnace of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

4) Matt. 13: 47, 50-- the bad are "thrown away"-- "thrown into the furnace of fire."

5) Matt. 18: 8, 9-- People will be "cast into the eternal fire."

6) Matt. 18: 34, 35-- Jesus says His Father will hand us over to "torturers" if we do not forgive others from our hearts.

7) Matt. 21: 40, 41-- the landowner bring the vine-growers to a "wretched end." In Mark 12: 29, the owner will "destroy the vine-growers." See also Luke 20: 16.

8) Matt. 22: 13-- The king tells his servants to bind the man without wedding garment and "throw him" into "outer darkness." (Compare Matt. 13: 50)

9) Matt. 24: 37, 38, 39-- Jesus teaches that people will die at Christ's return just as they did at the Deluge. In the Deluge, God destroyed them. The wicked made themselves unfit to live. In that sense, they destroyed themselves, but it was God who caused the Deluge which brought about their deaths.

10) Matt. 24: 51-- The "Master" will "cut the slave in pieces." (cf. Luke 12: 46). The slave does not cut himself nor do the slaves cut each other.

11) Matt. 25: 11-- The foolish virgins beg to be let inside the wedding feast (heaven) but they are rejected by the bridegroom. God will say that He doesn't know them. (Cf. Luke 13: 25, 27)

12) Matt. 25: 30-- The "Master" orders the "worthless slave" to be "thrown into the outer darkness"-- into oblivion. (cf. 13: 50). There will be "fire."

13) Matt. 25: 31-41. When Jesus comes in His glory, people will be judged, or separated, according to how they've treated Jesus in the person of other people. Those who have neglected to be kind and loving toward others will be sent "into the eternal fire" which God has prepared for the devil and his angels.

14) Matt. 25: 46-- the lost "go away into eternal punishment."

15) Luke 19: 27-- A nobleman (Christ) has his "enemies" "slain" in His sight. His "enemies" are those who did not want Him to reign over them.

NOTE: Can anyone find a parable in which the wicked are destroyed by Satan or by other wicked people or where they commit suicide or voluntarily jump into the lake of fire?

Notice that these parables are in total harmony with the teaching found elsewhere in Scripture, including the epistles of Paul, as well as the writings of Ellen White.

[pnattmbtc]

Me:"It's being claimed this is the only valid principle in a certain context, the context being when God is presented as doing things contrary to His character ..."

This part can't be false. That is, I'm assuming you can't be suggesting that God does things which are contrary to His character. Therefore the only alternative is that you don't see using force and violence to be contrary to God's character.

We have two ways, at least, of seeing that these *are* contrary to God's character.

1.The revelation of Jesus Christ of God's character.

2.Statements from the SOP that force is not a principle of God's government.

Mark:We also have a way to see that they are a part of Gods character.

1. Statement from the bible that God destroys through man and Angels.

2. Statements from the SOP that God destroys through man and Angels.

"They" are force and violence, right? So you're wanting to argue that force and violence are a part of God's character?

What do you do with the statement from the SOP saying that force is not principle of God's government? How can force be a part of God's character if it's not principle of His government?

What do you do with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ? Do you perceive Jesus Christ as teaching that violence is a good thing? Or that force should be used?

My impression of Christ's life and teaching is that it's in agreement with EGW's statements that force is not a principle of God's government. It certainly doesn't appear to me to be a principle of Christ's character. Where did Jesus Christ every use force or violence? There's only two incidents I can think of that can even be misconstrued in this way.

[pnattmbtc]

Does not the mere fact you have to change the plain meaning of Gods Word give you any cause for concern?

Mark, I've already asked you if you're going to comment on something I've said, to please quote what it is you're commenting on. Otherwise it makes a conversation very difficult.

Since the context of this quote is that force and violence are a part of God's character, I'll assume you have this in mind, and ask what Scripture teaches this idea? It seems to me that Jesus Christ taught about as clearly as possible that this is false. He revealed the Father. He said is someone strikes you on the cheek, to do what? Act violently? Where did Jesus Christ ever advocate that we should act violently?

If using force is a part of God's character, and violence as well, then if we are to be like God in character it follows that we should use force and be violent as well. Isn't this obviously wrong on the face of it?

[Guest]

My impression of Christ's life and teaching is that it's in agreement with EGW's statements that force is not a principle of God's government. It certainly doesn't appear to me to be a principle of Christ's character. Where did Jesus Christ every use force or violence? There's only two incidents I can think of that can even be misconstrued in this way.

But when God destroys the wicked, it isn't to force them to do anything.

[pnattmbtc]

The Desire of Ages quote says rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Obviously violently killing your enemy is overcoming him by force.

It is not force that overcomes evil, but good.

The prevailing powers of God's government are truth and love, not force and violence.