A Discussion of the Cause of the Flood

[Guest]

The "apparent contradictions" as you call them, are only apparent when you try to take those events you listed, and apply them across the board to everything the Bible and SOP has to say. Applying them to things they don't apply to.

There is no principle that says you are to do that. Therefore you are missapplying the meaning of the events. For you to say that your quotes are principles and mine are not, is ridiculous.

Your so called principles do not hold up under scrutiny, because there is far to much direct evidence to the contrary.

You cannot just say "my quotes nullify your quotes". To do so would totally disregard, and make of none effect over half of Ellen Whites writings.

There is no principle in Ellen Whites writing that we are to use to change the meaning of scripture. In fact she says just the opposite, which leaves you without a leg to stand on.

The decision to make your quotes into a principle which overrides all other light on the subject, including the Bible, comes from man, and not from God. Nay, the truth is, it comes from Satan.

[Guest]

The statements we are quoting provide us with the principles of interpretation to be adopted when reading the statements you have quoted.

I rest my case. this is excactly what I am talking about. "Our quotes trump your quotes, because our quotes are a principle, and therefore your quotes are insignificant."

Give me a break!

[pnattmbtc]

You write "your so called principles," but they're not mine. Ellen White called them "principles." She wrote, "The Lord's principles are not of this order." She didn't mean by this "The Lord's principles are not of this order, sometimes." A principle doesn't work that way. Force and violence are not of the Lord, ever. If she says the Lord's principles are not of the order, that means "God is not like this." We have the example of Jesus Christ, who showed us what God was really like, to validate this. According to the SOP, all that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ while here in the flesh. Jesus Christ revealed no violence, hence there is no violence in God.

I looked all over the SOP and could not find any reference to violence yet to come, except from Satan and those inspired by him. Everything I saw from her writings in regards to "violence" agreed with the principle she articulated, which is that the Lord's principles are not of this order.

In regards to the judgment, she articulates that the principles used are "kindness, mercy and love." Not violence.

[skyblue888]

Amen!!!

[Guest]

You must not have looked very hard. And no matter what she said, it is not to be used to change the Bible. Words of prophets are to be tested BY the Bible, not the other way around. It seems you have the horse pushing the cart.

[skyblue888]

What? so it is left to you now to tell us what the Bible means over what the Holy Spirit has clearly told us?

The Holy Spirit says something but Richard says something else and we are to bow to what Richard is saying?

Its not merely about quoting Scripture but about understanding what is written.

"Consider what I say and the Lord will give you understanding in all things." 2 Tim.2:7.

sky

[Guest]

You are the one claiming to be the mouthpiece for the Holy Spirit, not me. You are saying:

"Look at my understanding of this. It is light from God. Never mind what the Bible says, this is what it means".

The testimonies do NOT override the Bible, and are not to be used in that manner. All I'm saying is you WILL bow to what God has put in that Holy Book, either now, or later.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

The same God that gave Israel victory in Caanan -- then had foreign nations wipe them out.

God did not have foreign nations wipe them out. God permitted foreign nations to "wipe them out" because they had caused God's protection to be removed from them. It was not God's intention that this should happen. Jesus Christ expresses God's will:

Quote:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!(Matt. 23:37)

God's will was to gather Israel as a hen gathers its checks under its wings, but Israel didn't want that. So God "hid His face," just as He warned could happen if they abandoned Him.

Quote:

Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?(Deut. 31:17)

Regarding the following comment:

Quote:

You must not have looked very hard. And no matter what she said, it is not to be used to change the Bible. Words of prophets are to be tested BY the Bible, not the other way around. It seems you have the horse pushing the cart.

You've been quoting from the SOP, again and again. If you wish to discuss this subject without reference to her writings, that's fine, we can do so. You could start a topic for that purpose. But if you quote from the SOP, and someone answers you by doing the same thing you are doing, you certainly have no cause to accuse that person of putting the cart before the horse.

Here's another text which expresses God's heart:

Quote:

6And the sword shall abide on his cities, and shall consume his branches, and devour them, because of their own counsels.

7And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him.

8How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. (Hosea 11:6-8)

Elsewhere God asks, "Why will you die?"

The heart of the Lord is to look over those He cares for with tender pity. He always loved Israel. He had no desire that anything bad should happen to them, and He certainly didn't *cause* anything bad to happen to them.

God is good, and does good always and only. Bad things happen only when God's protection is removed. They are never caused by God, because God is good. We see the goodness of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not what God is like some of the time, but all of the time. He said, "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

[skyblue888]

Amen!!! Amen!!! and Amen!!!

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I rest my case. this is excactly what I am talking about. "Our quotes trump your quotes, because our quotes are a principle, and therefore your quotes are insignificant."

It's not a case of one quote "trumping" another, but of two different quotes apparently contradicting each other. We know the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, so it remains for us to determine how the quotes fit together.

Two methodologies have been suggested. On is that "your" quotes should be understood according to the principle that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits. Many examples of this have been given, including:

a.The destruction of Jerusalem

b.The killing of Saul

c.Sending lying spirits to Ahab

and many others.

So this is a valid principle.

Your methodology appears to be to limit the scope of "our" quotes, so that the principles are not principles which apply all of the time, but only some of the time.

I see a couple of problems with your methodology. One is that principles such as "force is not a principle of God's government. It is only found in Satan's government," is obviously meant to be understood as applying all the time.

Another problem is that certain principles, such as those articulated in GC 35-37, are specifically mentioned by Ellen White in this chapter as applying to the final judgment. So it's difficult to deny that these principles apply to the judgment when she herself is making that specific application.

Also there are other applications of principles which run contrary to certain ideas, such as that God will burn people alive in the judgment. GC 541-543 explains the principles of the final judgment to be "kindness, mercy and love." That's the specific event that she's talking about. Anyone can easily understand that burning someone alive for days is neither acting according to kindness, mercy, or love.

[Guest]

Then why did she waste her time writing things like this:

Said the angel, "It is the wrath of God and the Lamb that causes the destruction or death of the wicked. {EW 52}

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. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

The saints in unison with Jesus pass their judgment upon the wicked dead. Behold ye! said the angel, the saints sit in judgment, in unison with Jesus, and mete out to each of the wicked, according to the deeds done in the body, and it is set off against their names, what they must receive at the execution of the judgment. This, I saw, was the work of the saints with Jesus, in the Holy City before it descends to the earth, through the 1000 years. {ExV 33.2}

[BobRyan]

Quote:

I rest my case. this is excactly what I am talking about. "Our quotes trump your quotes, because our quotes are a principle, and therefore your quotes are insignificant."

It's not a case of one quote "trumping" another, but of two different quotes apparently contradicting each other. We know the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, so it remains for us to determine how the quotes fit together.

Two methodologies have been suggested. On is that "your" quotes should be understood according to the principle that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits. Many examples of this have been given, including:

a.The destruction of Jerusalem

b.The killing of Saul

c.Sending lying spirits to Ahab

God has many methods -- the problelm with your approach is that you wrongly assume He is limited to only one.

In some cases God has man punish man. In other cases he allows Satan to directly oppress man. In still other cases like the flood, or Soddom and Gomorrah, or the slaying of Achan or the slaying of Annanias, of the slaying of the firstborn in egypt... God is the one who slays man.

And in still other cases like MAtt 10:28 --> Rev 20 it is God that supernaturally punishes causing man to bear the full punishment for sin -- each one "tormented with fire and brimstone" Rev 14:10, such that they are "destroyed both body and soul" Matt 10:28 after suffering the exact debt of suffering owed for each sin committed.

(Hence my - "Who is in charge of the lake of fire" thread)

in Christ,

Bob

[skyblue888]

These quotes must be read with the same revealed principles involved. The reason why we have problems with these quotes is because we disregard the principles of interpretation that have been presented to us.

It is our preconceived ideas and personal opinions that we must leave at the door of investigation, not the divine principles of interpretation.

sky

[Guest]

I have never once seen her say: This is a principle of interpretation.

[skyblue888]

God will not be in charge of Hell fire.

To teach this is to teach papal doctrines.

Dark Ages thinking. This is part of the wine of Babylon.

sky

[skyblue888]

I have never once seen her say: This is a principle of interpretation.

You forgot to take off the blinders Richard.

sky

[BobRyan]

God will not be in charge of Hell fire.

To teach this is to teach papal doctrines.

Dark Ages thinking. This is part of the wine of Babylon.

sky

In Matt 10:28 Jesus said that it is beyond human power to destroy the soul as God does in fiery hell. I think we can trust Him on that point.

In Rev 20 God says that it is HE who sends fire down on the wicked. He repeats this in Rev 14:10 and Ellen White is incredibly specific on this point.

in Christ,

Bob

[skyblue888]

The language of the Bible is "But when the King heard about it, he was furious, and he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." Matt.22:7.

These words are referring to the desctruction of Jerusalem. The king in the parable represents God. So God was "furious" against the Jews and He sent the Romans after them to destroy them and to burn up their city.

Now in the Great Controversy, pp.35,36, the Holy Spirit explains that it was not God who was furious against the Jews but Satan himself, the leader they had chosen. This is why he is called "the anger of the Lord" in the Scriptures. It was him who sent the Romans after them. God did not interpose. And then the Holy Spirit says that Satan is seeking to conceal his own work by attributing it to God. This is how, through tradition and misinterpretation, Satan has obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin. So much so that God is seen as the executioner of the sentence against transgression.

But on that very page the Holy Spirit declares that "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression." G.C.36.

Why? Because "Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power." D.A.759.

The Holy Spirit has made this so clear to us that we have no excuse not to believe. We are now under obligation to believe.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

God will not be in charge of Hell fire.

To teach this is to teach papal doctrines.

Dark Ages thinking. This is part of the wine of Babylon.

sky

In Matt 10:28 Jesus said that it is beyond human power to destroy the soul as God does in fiery hell. I think we can trust Him on that point.

In Rev 20 God says that it is HE who sends fire down on the wicked. He repeats this in Rev 14:10 and Ellen White is incredibly specific on this point.

in Christ,

Bob

There is no problem understanding these passages of Scripture as long as we keep in mind the divine principles of interpretation.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are killed in a car accident. We agree that "the dead know not anything." Ecc.9:6. There is no consciousness in the grave until the resurrection. 1 Thess.4:14-18. But let us say that you are not resurrected when Jesus comes or after the 1000 years. You would then remain in the grave for ever. If you were to never be raised from the grave, then, to all intents and purposes, your body and soul have been destroyed and yet God did not lift a finger against you. It is in that sense that God can kill both the body and the soul. But if God wills to raise you from the dead all the powers of hell cannot do anything about it.

sky

[Guest]

And he does raise the wicked. For the sole purpose of punishment for the deeds done in the body, according to scripture.

The idea that these are "divine principles of interpretation" are yours, and yours alone. Nowhere does she say we are to interpret scripture with her writings. That is you saying that.

[skyblue888]

It is not Mrs. White saying it either. It is the Holy Spirit unless you are an unbeliever.

sky

[Guest]

So you are the prophet now? And the Holy Spirit is speaking through you?

[WayneV]

Originally Posted By: Gail

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

Good question about the rainbow [/quote']

God knew there would never be a flood again because the conditions that existed to cause a flood no longer existed.

sky

Where can I find that in Scripture? Or, is this an exercise in eisegesis?

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Where can I find that in Scripture? Or, is this an exercise in eisegesis?

You can't find it in scripture Wayne, That idea did not come from God, but from man.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Where can I find that in Scripture? Or, is this an exercise in eisegesis?

You will find it is in the Bible if you take the time to read the whole thread.

sky