A Discussion of the Cause of the Flood

[teresaq]

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']look at what happened to Jesus from gethsemene on.

stephen...

was it huss that one of his persecutors wrote down what happened?

or someone else? anyway huss' behavior during that time impressed him quite deeply. i dont remember if he allowed it to change his heart or not...

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

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?

Read carefully the following and tell what it says, not what it means to you but what it actually says--

"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." Also, "The righteous, with Jesus, mete out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer for the deeds done in the body." EW 52-54.

Why is the destruction of the wicked, as fire coming from God out of heaven, "inhumane"? Do you believe that the description found GC 673 is "inhumane"?

What is truly "inhumane" is rebellion against God, and the sin and death that was caused by Satan and committed by the wicked.

We must remember that the death of the wicked at this time is "punishment" and "recompense." Perhaps we are not yet reconciled with this truth.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

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.

i would add that thinking, 'God will get them in the lake of fire and i get to mete out their punishment during the 1000 years' would probably nullify both my salvation and any hope of their being saved.

i think that anything less than the "mind of Christ" at that moment, truly seeking and wanting their salvation over my own need to be relieved from suffering, will suffice.

Quote:

1Co 13:3 If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don't love, I've gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I'm bankrupt without love.

the message bible.

but let me stress, the natural man resists this with all the power it has. :(

[pnattmbtc]

Read carefully the following and tell what it says, not what it means to you but what it actually says--

"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." Also, "The righteous, with Jesus, mete out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer for the deeds done in the body." EW 52-54.

Why is the destruction of the wicked, as fire coming from God out of heaven, "inhumane"? Do you believe that the description found GC 673 is "inhumane"?

What is truly "inhumane" is rebellion against God, and the sin and death that was caused by Satan and committed by the wicked.

We must remember that the death of the wicked at this time is "punishment" and "recompense." Perhaps we are not yet reconciled with this truth.

Please answer my question regarding the fire. Is it something the wicked swim in? Are they set on fire like a torch? Or something else? I really want to understand your thinking on this, because I don't want to be misrepresenting your thoughts.

If it's one of the first two, the answer as to why I would think this inhumane should be obvious. The fact that you have indicated its not something you could sentence your loved ones to, because you don't hate sin like God does, indicates, or hints anyway, that you have similar sensibilities.

Regarding the "recompense," I believe this 100%. I just don't believe it's something arbitrarily ("arbitrary" as in Webster's primary definition, as in DA 764) done to them, but is rather a natural consequence of their own choices.

[skyblue888]

Quote:

a man changed against his will is of the same opinion still.

for some their understanding is just too plain and it seems impossible that it could be any other way.

then, it seems to me, we just have to leave them with that understanding, instead of trying to "rip" it from them. (from a statement by ellen white.)

in paying closer attention to the posts we can see the need to see God a certain way. it is tied into an emotional need. that emotional need needs to be acknowledged and supplied. and mostly only God can do that in His time and way.

jacob did not go any faster than the children and beasts were able.

____________________________________________________

I have known this saying for so many years now. It came from one of the Reformers in the days of Luther if I am not mistaken.

"A man convinced against his own will is of the same opinion still."

These words were spoken in the context of being forced to give up one's own convictions in the face of torture. What does it have to do with what is happening here? As far as I know, no one here is being forced to believe a certain way. Arguments are presented from both sides and all are free to choose what they want to believe.

And, I might add, those who are getting involved in the discussions on this forum are no rookies. Some have even been said to be "scholars of great proportion" and others speak as though they are in possession of all the light that God has for His people and that we are not to expect any new light.

And then there are those who will not budge simply because they have believed something for so many years. But "The question is, What is truth? It is not how many years have I believed that makes it the truth." F.W.77.

History will be repeated. In 1888 the message from God was first addressed to the ministers, the leaders, those occupying official positions in our institutions. That message was just as simple as ABC and it was to be received, believed, and acted upon. Instead of being received just as God sent it, "prejudices and opinions" raised their ugly head and the light that was to illuminate the whole earth was resisted and has been kept away from the church and the world ever since.

And now the Lord is causing His light to shine upon His professed people again and some are calling it a species of fanaticism as some did back in 1888. See 1 S.M.130.

Instead of taking heed to the warnings given, not to resist the heaven-sent light, sentimentalism seems to be prevailing as sympathy is shown toward those who are opposing the light and are unwilling that others should receive it. (E.W.241) It is time to receive, believe, and act upon the simple declarations the Lord has made through His Word and the Testimonies of His Spirit concerning His character, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin.

No one is forced to believe against his will. All are given the opportunity to choose. Either we believe that "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression" just as God said it or we don't. Our correct conception of God's character hangs or falls upon our acceptance or rejection of this precious light of truth. If we choose to disregard this heavenly illumination, there will be, as it was shown from D.A.322, a partial benumbing of the spiritual perceptions and the second revealing of light will be less clearly discerned. The darkness will increase until it is night in the soul.

This principle is stated in many different ways in the inspired writings. The statements have been produced and we are now under obligation to believe.

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

sky

[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

The Samaritans did not appreciate Christ's work and they certainly acted contrary to His ideas. Had He shown the least disposition to hurt or destroy them, He would have given the strongest evidence that He possessed the spirit of Satan. It was because He did not possess that spirit that He did not show any such disposition.

If we project this principle back to the Father's behaviour, the same conclusions must be maintained. Let the popular concept of God's character be thus tested.

It is true that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah did not appreciate the works of God and they certainly acted contrary to His ideas. The longer they lived, the greater the depths of apostasy to which they carried this. In the meantime, they resisted wilfully and stubbornly every outreach of God to bring them back into appreciation of His works and to actions harmonizing with His ideas. Consequently, so popular theology declares, God destroyed them by raining fire upon them. In the light of the statement quoted above, if this is true, then God provided all with convincing evidence that He was actuated with the spirit of the devil.

There is no other conclusion which can be drawn but this. The only way to deny this is to prove the statement quoted to be false and this cannot be done for it is the inspired word of God.

When the implications of the popular belief stand thus exposed, it is evident that there is the need for another better informed and more spiritual investigation of God's performance in that holocaust. It is certain that God does not possess the spirit of Satan. Therefore, it is equally certain that He does not hurt nor destroy those who do not appreciate His work and act contrary to His ideas.

The stand made by Christ against His apostles in the matter of the Samaritans, is a valuable revelation of His utter refusal to be involved in any kind of punitive work of destruction. He made it quite clear that such had no part with Him and therefore no part with His Father in heaven. The life of Christ utterly denies the idea that God destroys anyone for any reason.

to be continued

[jasd]

QR frame:

I despair contributing to threads such as this. My effort(s) to contribute toward the common exposition – are simply lost in the chaff. That said,

why is there the avoidance of a pause – that what has already been purported might be commented upon? To just go on pulling from the original defies the logic of instead - simply steering another to the online source itself...

>>"God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression, but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown." G.C.36.<<

Gen 8:21 ...I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; [...] neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Note: the first-person singular pronoun ‘I’ – as in, ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘myself’, ...no one other than ‘Me’, your Adversary/Satan – who wreaked destruction upon the earth and destroyed man from the face of it... ‘Me’, ‘I’. Okay, so He caused

the then erratic orbit of Mars to, relatively, collide with Earth; subsequently, by tidal force – slowing and, due to gravitational loss of its synchronous orbit – collapsing the ‘canopy’ (which, by best read, was a ‘hammered’ and/or purely crystallized sheathe). Furthermore, the ‘near-collision’ drew-off the oceans of Mars – to then deposit them upon Earth – with their remaining, viable sea-life, seemingly, contributing to our own oceans.

Haven’t gotten to the declamation re the Cities of the Plain, yet. Perhaps, later...

[Guest]

I despair contributing to threads such as this. My effort(s) to contribute toward the common exposition – are simply lost in the chaff. That said,

why is there the avoidance of a pause – that what has already been purported might be commented upon? To just go on pulling from the original defies the logic of instead - simply steering another to the online source itself...

I agree old chap. with this part anyway, and maybe the rest. I don't know. (and probably never will)

[Lutz13]

I despair contributing to threads such as this. My effort(s) to contribute toward the common exposition – are simply lost in the chaff.

A fine display of arrogance.

[Guest]

Arrogance?

[Lutz13]

Arrogance?

He is saying his contributions to the thread are lost in all the other garbage post.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Arrogance?

He is saying his contributions to the thread are lost in all the other garbage post.

No, he's saying when he tries to comment, he just gets skipped over with more of the same.

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: Lutz13

He is saying his contributions to the thread are lost in all the other garbage post.

No' date=' he's saying when he tries to comment, he just gets skipped over with more of the same. [/quote']

Nevermind, I'm tired. Apologies.

[Guest]

I wonder where jasd is? Maybe his post was a parting shot.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I despair contributing to threads such as this. My effort(s) to contribute toward the common exposition – are simply lost in the chaff.

>>A fine display of arrogance.<<

Truths come in many guises and wear hats other than that suggesting obsequiousness – wha’s that?

The matter I addressed is likened to the practice of shyster lawyers who ‘dump’ upon the opposition during discovery. Truth may or may not be there – but can it ever be extracted from the inordinate amount of unabated ‘information’?

It parallels giving one’s followers 33,000,000 million words to cogitate upon – versus the 788,000 contained in Holy Writ. What’s the denouement? other than utter discombobulation, that is...

tchah! (however, gracefully, in the diminutive)

[skyblue888]

The great truths of the Bible are not established by collecting a series of statements. They are built on solid foundational principles. Once these are ascertained, the superstructure can be accurately and safely constructed. When searching out the truth of God's character, the guiding principles are found in the nature of His government, the purpose of the law, Christ's revelation of His Father, and the role of the cross as the expression of God's methods of dealing with the unrepenting sinner.

The mighty witnesses of God contained in these, are more than sufficient to certify the loving, merciful, righteous, and just character of God. They effectively prove that He does not stand as an executioner toward the rejecters of His mercy.

But, as with every other Bible topic, certain statements seem to utterly contradict the witnesses mentioned above. These constitute a serious problem to many, who cannot feel at rest with the message until every statement has been explained. This is an unfortunate attitude to hold, as living faith does not wait till every problem has been solved before grasping precious truths.

To my mind, the life and teachings of Christ are the final, comprehensive declaration of what God is and does. His manifestation of the Father is so bright, so clear, and so total, that, for me, nothing more is needed. Therefore, it is the standard by which every argument about the Father's character is tested. If the argument presented cannot find support in Jesus Christ, then, no matter how logical it may seem to be, or how convincing it may appear, I reject it entirely, even though I may have no explanation for it as yet.

My faith grasps the reality of Christ's mission as the outshining of the Father's countenance. I believe that God sent His Son into the world for the express purpose of penetrating the mists of error and delusion which Satan had cast around His character of righteousness. The confirmation of that faith is expressed in the resolution to accept nothing about God except that which is in total agreement with the witness of the Father attested to by His Son.

Therefore, if anyone wishes to successfully convince me that God destroyed the sinner, offering as evidence the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, or any other punishments of the Old Testament era, then he must be able to bring proof that Christ, during His earthly mission, did the same thing. It is so impossible to do this that those who cling to the erroneous view that God does execute the sinner, claim that the revelation of God as given by Christ is only a partial manifestation of the Father which omits the sterner roles of judge and executioner.

Texts and statements quoted earlier expose this as fallacious thinking, for the manifestation of God as given by Christ was as complete as Christ, the superlative One, could make it. Nothing was overlooked or omitted.

No stand is taken here that there are two different revelations of God, the one given in Old Testament times versus that given by Christ. Not a single contradiction exists in the Word of God. There are no statements, rightly understood, which contradict the eternal principles of truth. On the contrary, when comprehended, they move from a position of apparent denial of the eternal verities, to one of mighty endorsement. Thus the true Bible student is not afraid of difficult statements. He may have to admit for the moment, that their true meaning eludes him, but he knows that it will not be for long, as the teaching Holy Spirit leads each trusting student along the glorious corridors of unfolding light.

to be continued

[John317]

Please answer my question regarding the fire. Is it something the wicked swim in? Are they set on fire like a torch? Or something else? I really want to understand your thinking on this, because I don't want to be misrepresenting your thoughts.

The wicked will be utterly destroyed by fire that comes down from God out of heaven. According to Inspiration, some will be "destroyed as in a moment," whereas others will suffer on for much longer. Satan will be the last to be completely destroyed.

As for "swimming in fire" or "being set on fire like a torch," these are expressions that are not used in the Bible or anywhere else. I prefer to stay with the language of the Bible and of Ellen White.

You won't be misrepresenting my thoughts at all if you speak of the wicked being destroyed exactly as Scripture says and as Ellen White wrote in Early Writings and GC.

Quote:

If it's one of the first two, the answer as to why I would think this inhumane should be obvious.

Was it inhumane for the wicked to be destroyed by a Flood and for the Sodomites to be destroyed by the fire that the Bible says the Lord sent from the Lord out of heaven? I don't believe it was. It must have been necessary or else we can be sure God wouldn't have taken the actions He did.

God made life and therefore He certainly has the right to take it away if in His wisdom He decides that it is best. I have no argument with Him about it.

It's tragic that the wicked will be lost, but I am fine with God's destroying the wicked when that time comes and He finally gets rid of all sin and rebellion in the universe. I know that's the only right decision. If He has to destroy me also because He decides that I shouldn't be among the saved, I am fine with that, too. I trust Him to make the right decision about the destruction of the wicked. On my own, apart from God's grace, I deserve to die eternally as well.

When the wicked are destroyed and sin is no more, the righteous will actually sing praises to God and they will rejoice that Satan and all the wicked no longer exist. My Life Today, 348-349, 355; PK 732, 733.

And even before they are destroyed, the wicked themselves will also join the entire universe in saying, "Just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of Saints." GC 671.

Quote:

The fact that you have indicated its not something you could sentence your loved ones to, because you don't hate sin like God does, indicates, or hints anyway, that you have similar sensibilities.

Would you agree that our present feelings and thoughts about sin and the destruction of the wicked are not what they will be heaven? We don't see sin as God does. If we did, we would already have witnessed the Second Coming.

Remember that Ellen White says that during the 1000 years, the saints will examine the record books of the wicked, and in unison with Jesus, they will "mete out to the wicked the portion they must suffer according to the deeds done in the body." Read EW 52-54.

Notice that the wicked do not suffer arbitrarily but they are punished according to their deeds. In other words, they get precisely what their sins deserve, and that decision is reached by the saints during their long and careful deliberation during the 1000 years.

Question:

How could this be if the wicked suffer apart from any decision on the part of the saints and Jesus? How do they "mete out... the portion the wicked must suffer" if the suffering is completely unconnected from the saints' decision?

The Lord is the One who announces the sentence of death to the wicked, and the fire that destroys them comes down from God out of heaven.

Quote:

Regarding the "recompense," I believe this 100%. I just don't believe it's something arbitrarily ("arbitrary" as in Webster's primary definition, as in DA 764) done to them, but is rather a natural consequence of their own choices.

I agree that in the final analysis the wicked destroy themselves by their own choices. They receive the results of their choices. They reap what they've sown.

In DA 764, Ellen White refers to God "exterminating sin." Sin is not an abstraction but is something that only exists in relationship with living, intelligent creatures.

God made the laws of nature, so when you say it is what happens to them as a "natural consequence of their choices," you are still saying that God is the One who is the ultimate cause of their destruction. God made the universe in such a way that sin and sinners are destroyed in His glorious presence. He might have made it so that sin could survive in his presence, but He didn't do that.

[pnattmbtc]

The great truths of the Bible are not established by collecting a series of statements. They are built on solid foundational principles. Once these are ascertained, the superstructure can be accurately and safely constructed. When searching out the truth of God's character, the guiding principles are found in the nature of His government, the purpose of the law, Christ's revelation of His Father, and the role of the cross as the expression of God's methods of dealing with the unrepenting sinner.

Right!

[pnattmbtc]

The wicked will be utterly destroyed by fire that comes down from God out of heaven. According to Inspiration, some will be "destroyed as in a moment," whereas others will suffer on for much longer. Satan will be the last to be completely destroyed.

As for swimming in fire or being set on fire like a torch, these are expressions that are not used in the Bible or anywhere else. I prefer to stay with the language of the Bible and of Ellen White.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The wicked will be utterly destroyed by fire that comes down from God out of heaven. According to Inspiration, some will be "destroyed as in a moment," whereas others will suffer on for much longer. Satan will be the last to be completely destroyed.

As for swimming in fire or being set on fire like a torch, these are expressions that are not used in the Bible or anywhere else. I prefer to stay with the language of the Bible and of Ellen White.

What do you think this language means? Does it mean the wicked will be set on fire? To burn like a torch? Or something else?

The Bible teaches that the fire from God out of heaven will burn up the wicked. See Mal. 4: 1, 3 and Is. 1: 28 and 66: 24. "The fire will burn them up." It will consume them. It will turn them to ashes beneath the feet of the righteous.

[John317]

If the fire is literal, as I'm understanding you to say, why doesn't it destroy the wicked in a few seconds? (This is how literal fire works.(

Yes, it will be literal fire. Ellen White says that the same fire that destroys the wicked also purifies the whole earth, and she describes the whole earth as being on fire. The very rocks are burning. The fact that it's literal doesn't necessarily mean that it is the same kind of fire that man makes. It is a fire that is able to destroy angels. The Bible says that it "comes from God." That means it is supernatural. It does not begin with humans.

The wicked burn as they do and for the length that they do because "the saints, with Jesus, mete out to the wicked the portion they MUST suffer." See EW 52-54.

Quote:

JOHN317--You won't be misrepresenting my thoughts at all if you speak of the wicked being destroyed exactly as Scripture says and as Ellen White wrote in Early Writings and GC.

Quote:

But what about passages like DA 764, DA 107-108, GC 541-543 which indicate the fire is not literal?

Quote the passage where she says the fire is NOT literal. Is a symbolic fire able to destroy the wicked and purify the earth? I do not think so, and Ellen White and the Bible both speak of it in literal terms.

It will not be any more symbolic than the fire that Exodus 19 describes on Mt. Sinai.

Please quote the passage in GC which causes you to believe the fire is not literal.

I see nothing in DA that teaches the fire will not be literal. It can't be made to conflict with the plain English she uses to tell us that the fire will be real. The glory of God will be life to the righteous but destructive fire to the wicked. It will destroy them by burning them up along with all the effects of sin in the world.

Quote:

Why can't the wicked be spoken of us being destroyed according to how these passages describe?

They are. I believe you are simply misunderstanding those passages to mean the fire is not literal. I don't think they mean that at all. Again, please quote the sentences that clearly say it is not a literal fire. Let's look at them together.

[John317]

[Guest]

Amen!

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

The full penalty of the law must be visited on sin and rebellion. See GC 673. [/quote']the penalty of drinking hemlock is death.

the penalty of jumping off the empire state building is death.

the penalty of smoking is health problems, some of which lead to death.

[John317]