A Discussion of the Cause of the Flood

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

The key to the problem lay in the application of two principles. The first is that God will never force His presence where it is not desired, and the second is that every power in nature is directly and continually dependent on God's creative power to keep it on station fulfilling its appointed task. Therefore, in the era leading up to the deluge, the sun and the moon, which were critical factors in the coming of the flood, were dependent on the presence of God's power to keep them burning at exactly the correct heat level and stationed at the proper distance from the earth. Let the Lord's hand be removed from the control and direction of those two orbs of fire, and the flood had to follow.

Under Satan's determined and relentless influence, men increasingly desired total separation from God. They wanted nothing of His ways or principles. God, knowing the dreadful consequences of such a course, sent message after message pleading with them to correct their drift, but they steadily insisted on His departure.

Because He will never force His presence where it is not desired, He had no choice but to depart. In doing so, He gave them what they wanted, the control of the heavens and the earth. The moon, being nearer to the earth, was the first to feel the effect of God's departure. It went out entirely. The sun, much further away from men and much larger than the moon, took longer to diminish completely. Before it could do so, the wicked had perished and suddenly the situation was reversed. Whereas the majority had been against God, now the changed situation placed the majority on His side. They were only eight in number but still the majority.

These, of course, desired the Lord to fill His office and do His work of sustaining the powers of heaven and earth. Thus the returning Spirit of God was able to arrest any further decay in the sun and maintain it at the diminished level. It has remained that way ever since.

this is such a good point!!

one thing about this message that i have not seen from the opposing side, is the stressing on how God protects and cares for us.

this message hits it home like nothing else can.

this, for me, is a gospel i can share far and wide!

God loves you so much, protects and cares for you every second and moment of the day, unless and until you convince Him you do not want anything whatsoever to do with Him.

but the alternative god will eventually destroy you in the worst possible way with the most demonic glee!!

look at the destruction of jerusalem.....

look at what happened in france during the reign of terror....

in fact we can look at almost every instance where man has left God...

aside from the instances where satan has been allowed to attack the people of God, such as job.

Excellent points teresa

thanks so much

sky

[skyblue888]

i wonder if we also tend to look at Gods power in a negative way instead of positive...

instead of concentrating on How He holds the worlds together, sends the rain, brings up the plants, ad infinitum, the concentration is more on the destruction....

for example tradition says sodom and gomorrah was destroyed for homosexuality. what a field day religionists have had from whoever it was that came up with that idea!!

a great "weapon" to use against the homosexual forgetting that it is an example of what will happen to everyone who has forsaken God.....

yes another excellent remark,,, so true!

[Twilight]

one thing about this message that i have not seen from the opposing side, is the stressing on how God protects and cares for us.

I believe it has been stated many times that a protective God will destroy those that are trying to harm His children...

Mark :-)

[oldsailor29]

God opened the windows of heaven. This means that God brought in water into the cosmos from the infinite wilderness outside of time and space.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Right! And for the same reason, it cannot be the case that God will set the wicked on fire at the end of time to cause them even worse suffering then that pictured here. It is not in Him to act this way. Simply studying the life of Christ makes this clear.

Amen.

What did you think of this:

"Terrible are the implications of believing that God determined that the cities of the plain should be consumed by fire and then proceeded to do it. It is to equate Him with the papacy, whose constant practice was to burn to death those who refused to submit to her assumed authority. Something of the seriousness of this is manifested when it is recognized that the papacy is Satan's masterpiece of misrepresentation of God's character. If we wish to understand what God is not, then behold the principles and practices of the papacy. The way God is supposed to have behaved at Sodom and Gomorrah is exactly as the papacy would have behaved if she had been in God's position. Therefore, how God is thought to have behaved is certainly not the way He conducted His affairs there.

The papacy went forth to convert the people to her religious beliefs and service. When her first efforts were unsuccessful, she began to exert pressure upon them until, when it was clear that the subjects of her ministrations had no mind to ever obey her, she cruelly destroyed them with fire. In doing this, she represented herself not only as administering the will of God but of doing it as she and Satan would have it believed God does it.

The very fact that this is the way of the papacy is certain denial of its being God's way for, if anyone wishes to know what God is not, let him behold what the papacy is and what she does. Contrawise, if anyone wishes to know what God is, let him look at the life of Jesus Christ. Never will the two witnesses agree.

It is with horror and loathing that we read of the papal practice of burning victims to death. Yet we have looked with satisfaction upon God's destroying by fire (as we imagined He did) those who would not obey Him. But careful thought will lead all to understand that if they do continue to believe that God personally decreed that the Sodomites should die by fire and then as personally administered the destruction, then our God is a cruel, revengeful, and therefore self-centred God. Of such a God the papacy is a fit symbol."

[/quote']

I agree with this argument. It reminds me of the following statement:

Quote:

Force is the last resort of every false religion. At first it tries attraction, as the king of Babylon tried the power of music and outward show. If these attractions, invented by men inspired by Satan, failed to make men worship the image, the hungry flames of the furnace were ready to consume them. So it will be now. The papacy has exercised her power to compel men to obey her, and she will continue to do so. (ST May 6, 1897).

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Amen.

What did you think of this:

"Terrible are the implications of believing that God determined that the cities of the plain should be consumed by fire and then proceeded to do it. It is to equate Him with the papacy, whose constant practice was to burn to death those who refused to submit to her assumed authority. Something of the seriousness of this is manifested when it is recognized that the papacy is Satan's masterpiece of misrepresentation of God's character. If we wish to understand what God is not, then behold the principles and practices of the papacy. The way God is supposed to have behaved at Sodom and Gomorrah is exactly as the papacy would have behaved if she had been in God's position. Therefore, how God is thought to have behaved is certainly not the way He conducted His affairs there.

The papacy went forth to convert the people to her religious beliefs and service. When her first efforts were unsuccessful, she began to exert pressure upon them until, when it was clear that the subjects of her ministrations had no mind to ever obey her, she cruelly destroyed them with fire. In doing this, she represented herself not only as administering the will of God but of doing it as she and Satan would have it believed God does it.

The very fact that this is the way of the papacy is certain denial of its being God's way for, if anyone wishes to know what God is not, let him behold what the papacy is and what she does. Contrawise, if anyone wishes to know what God is, let him look at the life of Jesus Christ. Never will the two witnesses agree.

It is with horror and loathing that we read of the papal practice of burning victims to death. Yet we have looked with satisfaction upon God's destroying by fire (as we imagined He did) those who would not obey Him. But careful thought will lead all to understand that if they do continue to believe that God personally decreed that the Sodomites should die by fire and then as personally administered the destruction, then our God is a cruel, revengeful, and therefore self-centred God. Of such a God the papacy is a fit symbol."

[/quote']

I agree with this argument. It reminds me of the following statement:

Quote:

Force is the last resort of every false religion. At first it tries attraction, as the king of Babylon tried the power of music and outward show. If these attractions, invented by men inspired by Satan, failed to make men worship the image, the hungry flames of the furnace were ready to consume them. So it will be now. The papacy has exercised her power to compel men to obey her, and she will continue to do so. (ST May 6, 1897).

Excellent statement.

So much appreciated.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

one thing about this message that i have not seen from the opposing side, is the stressing on how God protects and cares for us.

I believe it has been stated many times that a protective God will destroy those that are trying to harm His children...

Mark :-)

And it has been stated many times that a protective God will punish the wicked with a rod. But what does that mean?

"God bears with divine patience with the perversity of the wicked; but He declares that He will visit their transgressions with a rod. He will at last permit the destructive agencies of evil to bear sway to destroy. E.G. White Bible Commentary, Vol.7a,181.

Here again we are shown that God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression.

sky

[Gail]

Yesterday I purchased a KJV Bible with a Hymnal and Spirit of Prophecy notes throughout.

Here is what the EGW note says about Genesis 6:17. First I will quote the verse:

"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all fresh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

Here is the comment:

"Coal and oil Agencies in Final Destruction- Those majestic trees which God had caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction. As He called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the Flood, as weapons from His arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years He will call forth the fires in the earth as His weapons which He has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the Flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the Flood." 3 Spiritual Gifts 87

She describes here God's weapons in His arsenal. It doesn't sound very passive to me...

[skyblue888]

Yesterday I purchased a KJV Bible with a Hymnal and Spirit of Prophecy notes throughout.

Here is what the EGW note says about Genesis 6:17. First I will quote the verse:

"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all fresh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

Here is the comment:

"Coal and oil Agencies in Final Destruction- Those majestic trees which God had caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction. As He called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the Flood, as weapons from His arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years He will call forth the fires in the earth as His weapons which He has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the Flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the Flood." 3 Spiritual Gifts 87

She describes here God's weapons in His arsenal. It doesn't sound very passive to me...

Gail, did u take the time to read all the posts?

Again Gail it all depends how we read these statements. Jesus said, "How readest thou?"

Volcanos are weapons from His arsenal just as tidal waves, tornados, hurricanes and earthquakes are. But we must always keep in mind the light that He has sent to us and that is that "I was shown that God's judgments would not come directly out from the Lord upon them but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection."

This was true for the antediluvians as well as for Sodom and Gomorrah. It is always the case for "The principles of His dealing with men are ever the same." G.C.343. That is why we must be careful how we interpret that language. If we interpret the language of the statement you quoted as God being active by directly using these weapons to destroy the wicked, it would make Him an executioner of the sentence against transgression which He is not for it is written that "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression, but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown." G.C.36.

We just read in another statement that God will punish the wicked with a rod. That doesn't sound very passive either. And this is what He will do after the close of probation and after the 1000 years. The Bible even says "with a rod of iron." Is not that rod also a weapon in His arsenal? It sure is. But we must let inspiration interpret that language for us. It simply means that He will permit the destructive agencies of evil to bear sway to destroy. Nature out of control becomes a rod of destruction.

sky

[skyblue888]

Post # 7 Sodom and Gomorrah (Conclusion)

A wide variety of destructions befall the wicked. There are those who, as in the cases of Sodom and Gomorrah, are wiped out by volcanic eruptions, while others are taken by flood, earthquake, hurricane, hailstorm, accidents by air, sea, and land, giant conflagrations in forests and buildings, famine, or by the savage outbursts of human wrath. The only consistent pattern through it all is that the disaster is according to the potential of destruction common to the area.

This denies the charge that God personally takes hold of the powers of nature and manipulates them according to His design to punish sinners. God has the power to create any kind of destruction at will. He is not bound to the particular peril present in a given area. Being a God of utter justice and consistency would require Him to punish the same offences with the same punishments. But this is not so. The same offences are dealt with by widely varying punishments always according to the destructive potential of the place where the offenders reside.

There is as great a disparity in the severity of the judgments as in their type. Some of the sinful suffer lingering deaths tortured with intense suffering, while others die quickly and mercifully. This is unequal enough, but observation shows that those who live lives of great and unrestrained wickedness usually suffer much less than the relatively innocent. Consider the situation in wartime. Behind the titanic struggles are the warmongers, men burning with the lust for power who have no regard for the cost others must pay in order that they achieve their desires. They are the truly guilty ones who deserve the greatest punishment of all.

Out on the farmlands, in the villages, up in the mountains and all over the land are the simple, honest folk whose lives are largely devoid of serious vices even though they cannot be called the children of God. When the battles ravage the land, they are the sufferers. Their sons are killed, their houses levelled, their businesses ruined, their livestock destroyed, and their bodies are starved, mutilated, lamed, and finally killed.

Of the two classes, the warmongers are the ones upon whom the desolations should justly fall, but they grow fat and rich from the merchandise of blood. Justice is truly turned around. If this is the decree and work of God, then He is a strange God indeed. But we know that He is not that kind of God. He is absolutely just and strictly impartial. He never excuses one nor favours another, while dealing harshly with someone else less deserving. If God were the one administering the punishments then the penalty would be exacted according to the offense. The very fact that it is not, is clear proof that these situations are not the result of God's handiwork.

The same unequal discrimination is found in the fate of the earth's large cities. To walk the streets of London in England, Frankfurt in Germany, Copenhagen in Denmark, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York in the United States, is to behold sin under direct and wilful cultivation, with study being given to the art of satisfying the most demanding desires of the flesh. Many, coming in from country areas to encounter these things for the first time, have been so appalled at the spectacle that they have felt that God should and would arise to wipe these cesspools from the face of the earth. But decade follows decade during which the corruption prospers. Seemingly it enjoys the patronage and protection of God Himself.

While this is going on, the judgments which one would expect to see fall on these cities, strike with merciless ferocity on other places where one would judge the state of iniquity to be mild by comparison.

The examples which might be cited are numerous. Here are two which are typical. In Guatemala, February 4, 1976, an earthquake which measured 7.5 on the Richter scale, caused extensive damage and huge loss of life. It was estimated that the dead numbered twenty-three thousand and the injured, seventy-five thousand.

On December 25, 1974, a cyclone ripped through the quiet tropical city of Darwin in North West Australia, in what has been described as the worst natural disaster ever to strike in Australia. Ninety percent of the city was levelled and fifty people lost their lives.

If an investigator was sent to find the most iniquitous city on earth, neither Darwin nor Guatemala would be first on the list. His thoughts would naturally turn to the cities listed above. Yet those places live on unscathed year after year while these quieter places are razed to the dust.

Why this disparity?

The answer is quite simple.

Firstly it must be obvious that it is not the work of God for it is far too partial and capricious to be His handiwork. If He was the destroyer then He would certainly visit the large cities filled with vice and sin before He touched the smaller ones where evil is not nurtured to anywhere near the same degree. He would administer the punishments with carefully calculated exactitude so that the guilty would receive their just desserts. Things would be very different from what they are.

The nature and location of these catastrophes are clear proof that they are not the work of God. They occur because of the presence, in scattered areas of the earth, of pockets of potential destruction seeded at the time of the flood. Those who live in such areas need the protecting care of God more than do others who live where there is a lesser threat. But, by their impenitent living they grieve away the shield of omnipotence thereby exposing themselves to the terrible storms or earthquakes, fires, floods, volcanic eruptions, or whatever else is poised to obliterate them. Therefore, they suffer the awful consequences of the withdrawal of God's presence, as others in more favourable places do not.

This does not infer that there are entirely safe places on earth for this is not true. As the withdrawal of God's presence becomes more extensive, the uncaged powers of nature are reaching out to waste areas previously untouched. As we draw nearer to the end, this will become universal.

There is no problem in understanding what God did at Sodom & Gomorrah if care is taken to consider all the implications and if the principles which govern God's behaviour are carefully kept in mind.

[skyblue888]

"Everything in the world is in agitation. The signs of the times are ominous. Coming events cast their shadows before. The Spirit of God is withdrawing from the earth, and calamity follows calamity by sea and by land. There are tempests, earthquakes, fires, floods, murders of every grade. Who can read the future? Where is security? There is assurance in nothing that is human or earthly. Rapidly are men ranging themselves under the banner they have chosen. Restlessly are they waiting and watching the movements of their leaders. There are those who are waiting and watching and working for our Lord's appearing. Another class are falling into line under the generalship of the first great apostate. Few believe with heart and soul that we have a hell to shun and a heaven to win." D.A.636.

"When we seek to gain Heaven (approval of God) through the merits of Christ, the soul makes progress... from strength to strength, from victory to victory, for through Christ the grace of God (the grace of the Holy Spirit) has worked out our complete salvation." E.G. White, Review and Herald, July 1,1890. *parenthesis supplied

[John317]

Yesterday I purchased a KJV Bible with a Hymnal and Spirit of Prophecy notes throughout.

Here is what the EGW note says about Genesis 6:17. First I will quote the verse:

"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all fresh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

Here is the comment:

"Coal and oil Agencies in Final Destruction- Those majestic trees which God had caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction. As He called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the Flood, as weapons from His arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years He will call forth the fires in the earth as His weapons which He has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the Flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the Flood." 3 Spiritual Gifts 87

She describes here God's weapons in His arsenal. It doesn't sound very passive to me...

How interesting! I bought that same Bible only a few days ago and noticed that same quote, too. It's a wonderful Bible with lots of maps, illustrations, graphs, and study helps.

The quote harmonizes with the Bible and E. G. White comments. The Bible speaks of a "lake of fire" and Mrs. White writes about the "whole earth" being "wrapped in a sea of fire," except for the place where the city of God rests. This is obviously real fire and it obviously destroys the wicked. There's no mention anywhere in Inspiration that it is started by the wicked themselves. This destruction of the wicked is spoken of by Inspiration as "punishment" and "recompense" which the wicked "receive." 3 BC 1142. Also see EW 52-54. The latter pages say specifically, "The wicked then received according as the saints, in unison with Jesus, had meted out to them during the 1000 years. The same fire from God that consumed the wicked purified the whole earth." Elsewhere she also says, "The righteous, with Jesus, mete out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer for the deeds done in the body." If we put that quote together with what she says in 3 SG 87, there is no doubt as to how the wicked die.

[skyblue888]

John, you keep forgetting one thing and that is that the Lord Himself has given us the keys as to how to interpret that language.

You have read all the posts so far and you are still unmoved in spite of all the clear evidence that God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression?

sky

[skyblue888]

God provided in Christ's life and teachings the complete and final means whereby every theory about Him can be tested. By this means, every interpretation of God's behaviour can be infallibly categorized as true or false. Thus, for instance, the idea that God destroys those who defy Him, is classified as erroneous.

If faith can take firm hold upon the principle that Christ is the perfect and incontrovertible expression of all that God is, the groundwork, has been thoroughly laid for revising the common interpretations of the Old Testament stories. Confidence will be established in the truth that there is an alternative version of what God actually did in those terrible situations.

To strengthen that confidence and expectation, further consideration will now be given to the testimony of Jesus. When, upon this earth, He showed no disposition to reach out in acts of punishment and destruction, it was not because He was afforded no opportunity or power to do so. He certainly had the power as was manifested in His miracles of healing, His command of the wild storms, and His ability to restrain the demoniacs.There was no lack of occasion for the administration of punishment and destruction, for He was continually confronted with those who despised His offers of salvation, not only refusing to obey Him, but actually working in open rebellion against Him.

More than this, He was urged to raise His hand and rain fire upon those who had turned against Him.

"And it came to pass, when the time was come that He should be received up, He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem and sent messengers before His face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for Him. And they did not receive Him, because His face was as though He would go to Jerusalem. And when His disciples, James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt Thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But He turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." Luke 9:51-56.

The Samaritans could have offered no greater insult to the Son of God. The offer of hospitality to a stranger is regarded in the east as being an obligation on all, and to refuse this is to indicate rejection of the worst kind. If ever, from the human point of view, a sin needed to be punished to teach a lesson of warning to all others, then this was it.

"James and John, Christ's messengers, were greatly annoyed at the insult shown to their Lord. They were filled with indignation because He had been so rudely treated by the Samaritans whom He was honouring by His presence. They had recently been with Him on the mount of transfiguration, and had seen Him glorified by God, and honoured by Moses and Elijah. This manifest dishonour on the part of the Samaritans, should not, they thought, be passed over without marked punishment. 'Coming to Christ, they reported to Him the words of the people, telling Him that they had even refused to give Him a night's lodging. They thought that a grievous wrong had been done Him, and seeing Mount Carmel in the distance, where Elijah had slain the false prophets, they said, 'Wilt Thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, as Elias did?' " The Desire of Ages, 487.

Those men were familiar with Old Testament history and they thought they understood quite well the way in which God had dealt with similar offences in the past. Therefore, they believed that they were asking Christ to do just what they were sure God would have done under the circumstances. Their misunderstanding of His character led them to expect Christ to endorse their suggestion.

Like millions before and since, those men had a concept of God and His kingdom which differed in no way from earthly kings and their kingdoms. For this reason they held to the expectation that Christ would establish a kingdom by using force and compulsion. So firmly entrenched was this idea that Christ's efforts to disillusion them proved fruitless. They came to the last Passover making no provision whatsoever for Christ's rejection, a crown of thorns, and a crucifixion.

to be continued

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Gail

Yesterday I purchased a KJV Bible with a Hymnal and Spirit of Prophecy notes throughout.

Here is what the EGW note says about Genesis 6:17. First I will quote the verse:

"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all fresh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

Here is the comment:

"Coal and oil Agencies in Final Destruction- Those majestic trees which God had caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction. As He called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the Flood, as weapons from His arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years He will call forth the fires in the earth as His weapons which He has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the Flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the Flood." 3 Spiritual Gifts 87

She describes here God's weapons in His arsenal. It doesn't sound very passive to me...

How interesting! I bought that same Bible only a few days ago and noticed that same quote, too. It's a wonderful Bible with lots of maps, illustrations, graphs, and study helps.

The quote harmonizes with the Bible and E. G. White comments. The Bible speaks of a "lake of fire" and Mrs. White writes about the "whole earth" being "wrapped in a sea of fire," except for the place where the city of God rests. This is obviously real fire and it obviously destroys the wicked. There's no mention anywhere in Inspiration that it is started by the wicked themselves. This destruction of the wicked is spoken of by Inspiration as "punishment" and "recompense" which the wicked "receive." 3 BC 1142. Also see EW 52-54. The latter pages say specifically, "The wicked then received according as the saints, in unison with Jesus, had meted out to them during the 1000 years. The same fire from God that consumed the wicked purified the whole earth." Elsewhere she also says, "The righteous, with Jesus, mete out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer for the deeds done in the body." If we put that quote together with what she says in 3 SG 87, there is no doubt as to how the wicked die.

Amen John.

sky you have effectively dispenced with a whole lot of scripture by taking that one quote and placing it above the Bible. If you can't see that's wrong, then there is nothing anyone can tell you.

[pnattmbtc]

The quote harmonizes with the Bible and E. G. White comments. The Bible speaks of a "lake of fire" and Mrs. White writes about the "whole earth" being "wrapped in a sea of fire," except for the place where the city of God rests. This is obviously real fire and it obviously destroys the wicked.

How does it do this? Is it like molten lava that the wicked swim around in? Why doesn't kill the wicked right away? Why would God choose such an inhumane way of punishment?

Going back to a previous conversation. You expressed the opinion that the righteous in heaven will be determining for how long a period of time their loved ones will be burned, and I asked if you could do this to your loved ones, and said no, you couldn't, but you don't hate sin like God does. The implication of this is that if we were more like God, then we would hate sin more, which would enable us to do sentence our loved ones to be burned alive by fire for many hours or many days.

So it seems that being more like God "hardens" us, enabling us to do things our normal sensibilities would not allow us to do. But as we come to hate sin more and more, we become more and more hardened to where we can sentence, I suppose, people we don't know to be burned alive, then eventually people we do know, but not too well, until we graduate to the point to where we are hardened enough to sentence our own wife or child or mother to be set on fire.

[pnattmbtc]

sky you have effectively dispenced with a whole lot of scripture by taking that one quote and placing it above the Bible.

[skyblue888]

In order to understand the Samaritan incident, it is important to recognize that the apostles did have a very wrong concept of God's character and that their request to Jesus was made in harmony with that erroneous idea. They looked upon God as a majestic Being of judgment and destruction who would miss no opportunity of asserting His authority by making an example of the impenitent.

They believed that Christ was on the journey to His coronation in Jerusalem so that if there was ever a time when men should have a signal lesson of the peril of withholding homage, this was that moment. A few lives sacrificed now, would save many later.

If the disciples had been correct in their assessment of God's character; if what they thought they understood Him as doing in the Old Testament, had been what He really had done, then, because Christ did only as and what the Father did, He would have called down fire from heaven there and then. This would have been a splendid opportunity for Christ to show forth the character of God as the executioner of those who rebelled against Him. Christ would have taken full advantage of such a splendid opportunity to show this aspect of God's policies.

But Christ would not even consider doing any such thing. Instead, He rebuked the disciples. "They were surprised to see that Jesus was pained by their words, and still more surprised as His rebuke fell upon their ears, 'Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.' And He went to another village." D.A.487.

Christ did not use this opportunity to show forth the Father as an executioner because that is not God's character. But this does not mean that He missed the chance of revealing the Father. Far from it. This was a golden opportunity to do so and He made the most of it.

He instructed His followers that the course they proposed sprang from a spirit foreign both to Him and His Father. Such a spirit and its fruit, not being found in the divine nature, found its source in Satan's heart. It was his way, not God's, to destroy those who failed to serve him.

Having denied identification with that spirit, Christ reiterated what He had come to do. Close attention should be paid to what He said with care taken not to read into it what He did not say. Explicitly, He declared, "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." He did not say, "The Son of man is come to save all who will be saved and then to destroy the remainder."

But this is what the Saviour would have had to say if the accepted view of God's ways is correct. Furthermore, He would have been obliged to demonstrate the veracity of His words by destroying every Samaritan whose rejection of Him was final. But He neither spoke such words nor performed such actions. Instead with great plainness, He said, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives . . ."

Men set out to achieve with the best of intentions and noble principles, only to find that they did not realize the complications which would arise. Too often, they then compromise their principles and modify their plans to meet the unexpected. It is not so with God. At the outset, He is fully aware of every difficulty which will develop. In the fulness of that foreknowledge, He outlines the course He will pursue. With infallible consistency thereafter, He adheres to His stated principles. No pressure can be mounted sufficient to cause the least deviation.

When Christ said that He did not come to destroy men's lives, we can be assured of the absolute reliability of those words. Therefore, we can know that He did not destroy when He came. Further, inasmuch as He did only what the Father did, then we can know that the Father does not come to destroy us. Christ came only to save. Likewise, the Father comes to us as a Saviour and a Saviour only.

"It is no part of Christ's mission to compel men to receive Him. It is Satan, and men actuated by his spirit, that seek to compel the conscience. Under a pretense of zeal for righteousness, men who are confederate with evil angels bring suffering upon their fellow men, in order to convert them to their ideas of religion; but Christ is ever showing mercy, ever seeking to win by the revealing of His love. He can admit no rival in the soul, nor accept of partial service; but He desires only voluntary service, the willing surrender of the heart under the constraint of love. There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." D.A.487.

to be continued

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

one thing about this message that i have not seen from the opposing side, is the stressing on how God protects and cares for us.

I believe it has been stated many times that a protective God will destroy those that are trying to harm His children...

you just proved my point!!

i tend to see it more as God will rescue us.

i am also learning that in order to save another God may have to let that one do horrible things to me.

saul comes to mind, as do many, many other stories.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I believe it has been stated many times that a protective God will destroy those that are trying to harm His children... [/quote']And it has been stated many times that a protective God will punish the wicked with a rod. But what does that mean?

"God bears with divine patience with the perversity of the wicked; but He declares that He will visit their transgressions with a rod. He will at last permit the destructive agencies of evil to bear sway to destroy. E.G. White Bible Commentary, Vol.7a,181.

Here again we are shown that God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression.

we forget that the "rod" is used by man.

[teresaq]

Yesterday I purchased a KJV Bible with a Hymnal and Spirit of Prophecy notes throughout.

Here is what the EGW note says about Genesis 6:17. First I will quote the verse:

"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all fresh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

Here is the comment:

"Coal and oil Agencies in Final Destruction- Those majestic trees which God had caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction. As He called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the Flood, as weapons from His arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years He will call forth the fires in the earth as His weapons which He has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the Flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the Flood." 3 Spiritual Gifts 87

She describes here God's weapons in His arsenal. It doesn't sound very passive to me...

the problem with those bibles is that they are not comprehensive. that would be impossible.

we still have to go back and collect all the statements on any particular subject to get the complete picture.

i think we might think about what we consider "passive" also.

i think when we read statements a certain picture comes to our mind that may be the opposite of the picture the author of those statements had.

overall i agree that statements such as you provided above do appear to be conclusive, but i have learned so many times, been corrected in my understanding so many times, that it prevents me from being too dogmatic, or digging in my feet and saying, 'no, this is the only way it can be understood'.

[Lutz13]

i am also learning that in order to save another God may have to let that one do horrible things to me.

Interesting. I have never really thought of it that way. That is a great point and something I should keep in mind for the future. Thank you.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Teresaq

i am also learning that in order to save another God may have to let that one do horrible things to me.

Interesting. I have never really thought of it that way. That is a great point and something I should keep in mind for the future. Thank you.

lutz, could u please explain it to me or may be teresa could re-phrase it,,, :)

[teresaq]

John, you keep forgetting one thing and that is that the Lord Himself has given us the keys as to how to interpret that language.

You have read all the posts so far and you are still unmoved in spite of all the clear evidence that God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression?

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: Lutz13

Interesting. I have never really thought of it that way. That is a great point and something I should keep in mind for the future. Thank you.

lutz' date=' could u please explain it to me or may be teresa could re-phrase it,,, [/quote']

I understand it as. God sometimes lets the saved suffer because He has put them in a position to withstand the beatings, to save another person. Much like the martyrs, they died for a cause and that cause increased in size the more that died.

This is something I have never really thought too much about. I should be completely ok with suffering if it saves another person.