A Discussion of the Cause of the Flood

[Guest]

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).

[Guest]

"The only remedy is belief in the truth, acceptance of the light." T.M.91.

What's that supposed to mean? sky has the light?

[skyblue888]

Consider the principle that force is not a principle of God's government, that His principles are not of this order, and that rebellion is not overcome by force. How can it be argued that these statements don't apply to the act of destroying rebellion by force?

Amen!

[skyblue888]

Mark has argued that force and violence are a part of God's character. I'm curious if everyone who takes the position that God will burn people alive who disobey Him agree with this idea, that force and violence are a part of God's character.

This argument cannot be gainsaid.

sky

[wayfinder]

Numbers 14:11 The LORD said to Moses, "How long will this people spurn Me? And how long will they not believe in Me, despite all the signs which I have performed in their midst? 12 "I will smite them with pestilence and dispossess them, and I will make you into a nation greater and mightier than they."

FORCE! (If it looks like a duck and....)

[Guest]

This argument cannot be gainsaid.

sky

I guess if one is willing to forge ahead ignoring plain scripture, and half of Ellen White's writings, then yeah, maybe you're right.

I am not willing to do that.

[Twilight]

Consider the principle that force is not a principle of God's government, that His principles are not of this order, and that rebellion is not overcome by force. How can it be argued that these statements don't apply to the act of destroying rebellion by force?

Again Pnatt, if you we are to take a quote out of context and interpret the bible with it, we will find ourselves wandering far from the path in a short space of time.

If we also ignore those statements that do not sit with "our interpretation" on a subject, we will also become deceived.

Mark

[Twilight]

Mark has argued that force and violence are a part of God's character. I'm curious if everyone who takes the position that God will burn people alive who disobey Him agree with this idea, that force and violence are a part of God's character.

I am arguing that the Bible clearly shows that God uses violent judgements.

Would you mind if I responded like this:

Pnatt has continually represented the idea that God is a pacifist. I am curious if anyone has a text to support this idea that I can only see as deriving from human reasoning and humanism.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

"The only remedy is belief in the truth, acceptance of the light." T.M.91.

Here is the mantra again...

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

Copied from a previous post:

These are the two positions represented over and over.

1. God does not destroy (here is a proof text).

2. You are rejecting light (here is a proof text).

[Twilight]

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).

Sadly, this is not the case here.

[skyblue888]

What are you saying now by using this quote?

You want to follow the Bible? The Bible itself directs us to the Spirit of Prophecy.

Mrs. White always directed the eyes of the people to Christ, to His merits, and to the Scriptures, and the Scriptures themselves speak of the manifestation of the spirit of prophecy.

John the Baptist directed the eyes of the people to Christ but don't forget that those who rejected his ministry could not appreciate Christ's ministry.

And yet it is shown from the Bible itself that God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression. The case of king Saul demonstrates that fact clearly but we still don't get it. So the Lord in His mercy sends us testimonies in the hope that this time we will get it but we still don't.

We are stiffnecked as were the Jews of old.

sky

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

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).

Sadly, this is not the case here.

I agree with you. Well said. And this is a good quote Richard.

[skyblue888]

Redwood, you should stay out of this discussion since youve been hiding somewhere in the bushes while we were in the thick of the battle.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

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).

Sadly, this is not the case here.

Then you will have no choice but to let go of the 1888 message regarding the merits of Christ.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Consider the principle that force is not a principle of God's government, that His principles are not of this order, and that rebellion is not overcome by force. How can it be argued that these statements don't apply to the act of destroying rebellion by force?

Again Pnatt, if you we are to take a quote out of context and interpret the bible with it, we will find ourselves wandering far from the path in a short space of time.

If we also ignore those statements that do not sit with "our interpretation" on a subject, we will also become deceived.

Mark

How can the quote be out of context? She says:

1.Force is not a principle of God's government.

2.The Lord's principles are not of this order.

3.Compelling power is only to be found in the government of the enemy.

4.Love and truth are the prevailing power of God's government.

How can this possibly mean:

1.Force is (sometimes/generally/often) not a principle of God's government.

2.The Lord's principles are (sometimes/generally/often) not of this order.

3.Compelling power is (sometimes/generally/often) only to be found in the government of the enemy.

4.Love and truth are (sometimes/generally/often) the prevailing power of God's government.

I agree that it's very important to consider the context of a statement, and to consider whether a principle we learn should be applied specifically as opposed to generally. Some principles, however, are general principles, and I think it's clear beyond dispute that the above fall in this category.

[Guest]

I can't say I understand what you're saying there sky.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Sadly, this is not the case here. [/quote']

Then you will have no choice but to let go of the 1888 message regarding the merits of Christ.

sky

Why?

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Again Pnatt, if you we are to take a quote out of context and interpret the bible with it, we will find ourselves wandering far from the path in a short space of time.

If we also ignore those statements that do not sit with "our interpretation" on a subject, we will also become deceived.

Mark [/quote']

How can the quote be out of context? She says:

1.Force is not a principle of God's government.

2.The Lord's principles are not of this order.

3.Compelling power is only to be found in the government of the enemy.

4.Love and truth are the prevailing power of God's government.

How can this possibly mean:

1.Force is (sometimes/generally/often) not a principle of God's government.

2.The Lord's principles are (sometimes/generally/often) not of this order.

3.Compelling power is (sometimes/generally/often) only to be found in the government of the enemy.

4.Love and truth are (sometimes/generally/often) the prevailing power of God's government.

I agree that it's very important to consider the context of a statement, and to consider whether a principle we learn should be applied specifically as opposed to generally. Some principles, however, are general principles, and I think it's clear beyond dispute that the above fall in this category.

That just means that yes, God does not use force to make you obey. You have free will. But on judgment day he is going to force the wicked to die, just like he has said he would throughout scripture.

[skyblue888]

Wrong. This is Satan's lie.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Again Pnatt, if you we are to take a quote out of context and interpret the bible with it, we will find ourselves wandering far from the path in a short space of time.

If we also ignore those statements that do not sit with "our interpretation" on a subject, we will also become deceived.

Mark [/quote']

How can the quote be out of context? She says:

1.Force is not a principle of God's government.

2.The Lord's principles are not of this order.

3.Compelling power is only to be found in the government of the enemy.

4.Love and truth are the prevailing power of God's government.

How can this possibly mean:

1.Force is (sometimes/generally/often) not a principle of God's government.

2.The Lord's principles are (sometimes/generally/often) not of this order.

3.Compelling power is (sometimes/generally/often) only to be found in the government of the enemy.

4.Love and truth are (sometimes/generally/often) the prevailing power of God's government.

I agree that it's very important to consider the context of a statement, and to consider whether a principle we learn should be applied specifically as opposed to generally. Some principles, however, are general principles, and I think it's clear beyond dispute that the above fall in this category.

Amen!

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Why?

Why? you know why!!!

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

That just means that yes, God does not use force to make you obey. You have free will. But on judgment day he is going to force the wicked to die, just like he has said he would throughout scripture.

And I can only see this in scripture.

I cannot see the other view that there is never a use of force by God.

Because it is clear that God has used force in the past.

Mark

[Woody]

Quote:

Then you will have no choice but to let go of the 1888 message regarding the merits of Christ.

Oh well ... I will then just stick to scripture.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Why? you know why!!!

Please explain your statement Sky.

I do not have a clue what you are trying to say and I would not like to assume I knew the point you were trying to make.

So please clarify.

[Guest]

sky the reason you are teaching heresy is because you have thrown off the Holy Spirit and followed your emotions. Your message is appealing on an emotional level, but we are not to depend on our emotions.

I am afraid if you don't turn back now, that you will just keep going further and further off the path. You have already ceased using the Bible and the Bible only to prove doctrine with, and as your only rule of faith.

You justify it in your mind because you are using Ellen White. Ellen White is good, but you are not using her writings for what God intended.

I see no reason to argue with you anymore, as it does no good, and seems to be a waste of my time. I wish you the best and hope you can get back on track somehow.