A Discussion of the Cause of the Flood

[John317]

Quote:

53And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

54And 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?

55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9)

All those wonderful verses teach that Christ did not come to judge and destroy but to save. At that time Jesus was a prophet and the Lamb of God. He came to give His life a ransom for many.

Those above verses have nothing to do with the judgment at the end of the 1000 years, which is the time of retributive justice. Remember that Jesus comes as King and Judge. Study Heb. 9: 28 and Rev. 19: 11-21.

[skyblue888]

John, I too take the Bible very seriously, as it reads, but I always want to make sure I am letting God explain Himself. The Lord has, in the Bible and in the Testimonies, showed us one example after another as to how we are to interpret His words; for example the words of God to Moses were He says "I will harden Pharaoh's heart;" we now know that God did not directly harden Pharaoh's heart but that He sent him light to correct his errors and to lead him in safe paths. It was by the rejection of that light that his eyes were blinded and his heart hardened. And then the Holy Spirit goes on to say that "When one ray of light is disregarded there is a partial benumbing of the spiritual perceptions and the second revealing is less clearly discerned." (D.A.322)

And then we read that "What Pharaoh has done will be done again and again by men until the close of probation. God destroys no man; but when a man stifles conviction, when he turns from evidence, he is sowing unbelief and will reap as he has sown." RH, Vol.6, p.285.

Then we have read that "God slew Saul;" but we know from the Bible itself that Saul killed himself by falling on his sword. 1 Chron.10:14,4. Saul lost God's protection and he was "left with no power to control the evil passions of the soul and with no protection against the malice and enmity of Satan;" (G.C.36)

Then we discussed the case of when God said to David "I will bring evil out of your own house;" following these words is the inspired commentary that God by these words did not mean that He Himself would prompt these acts of wickedness but that because of David's sin He would not exercise His power to prevent them; (P.P.739)

Then we read about the case of those who do not have the love of the truth; to them the Bible says that "God sends them strong delusions that they should believe a lie;" but then the divine commentary is quick to explain what these words mean and that is that "As they reject the teachings of His word, He withdraws His Spirit and leaves them to the deceptions which they love;" (G.C.431)

Then we read that when parents and rulers neglect the duty of punishing iniquity, it is written that ""God Himself will take the case in hand;"; and then again these words are followed by the divine commentary explaining that this means that "God's restraining power will be in a measure removed from the agencies of evil, so that a train of circumstances will arise that will punish sin with sin;" (P.P.728)

All of these passages of Scriptures, just to mention these, have been graciously explained to us by the Holy Spirit and yet these ministrations of the Holy Spirit have been ridiculed, spoken against, if not totally ignored or brushed aside as mere figments of man's imaginations; thus these inspired commentaries have absolutely no weight with those who wish to cling to the same old traditional understanding which sees God as directly punishing or destroying those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas. (D.A.487)

It is thus that "Our good and gracious Lord has been presented to us clothed in the attributes of Satan." (1 S.M.355)

"It is the darkness of misapprehension of God that is enshrouding the world. Men are losing their knowledge of His character. It has been misunderstood and misinterpreted. At this time, a message from God is to be proclaimed, a message illuminating in its influence and saving in its power. His character is to be made known. Into the darkness of the world is to be shed the light of His glory, the light of His goodness, mercy, and truth." C.O.L.415.

So in the night of spiritual darkness, (Isaiah 60:1-3) God's word goes forth,

"Let there be light."

"Let the light of the knowledge of the glory--character--of God in the face of Jesus Christ shine in the darkened void of your hearts." 2 Cor.4:6.

The light will shine.

sky

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Quote:

J:People do that a lot when they try to make it appear that sin is good and what's good is bad.

Here's the statement in context:

It sounds like your argument may be with the Bible and with God, because all I am doing is quoting the Bible.

People can try to explain it in such a way that it appears that God does not do what the Bible says He will do, but I think that's merely an attempt to please man's thinking and make God in man's image. People do that a lot when they try to make it appear that sin is good and what's good is bad.

I could respond in kind, and say something like, "People do what you do a lot when X," but is this really the way you'd like to see discussions like this go?

I did not say you are trying to make sin appear good. I am saying that people change the language of Scripture when they want to change the meaning of Scripture. An example of that is when people try to make sin appear as not-sin. When it comes to the destruction of the wicked, I am content to leave the language of Scripture as it is.

Quote:

J: When I study this topic with people, I leave the Bible texts as they read. I don't paraphrase them in a way that contradicts the plain language of Scripture. Ellen White says that we should take the Bible "just as it reads." So I make sure people understand God's love and mercy, and that they know God does not get pleasure out of the death of the wicked, but people need to face the truth of what the Bible teaches in plain language.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The Bible does not teach that God must set people on fire in order to make them suffer to pay for their sins.

Please tell the words of the warning found in the Third Angels Message regarding what will happen to those who worship the beast and receive its mark.

Is there suffering portrayed there? Long or short suffering?

What does Ellen White write in GC 673 and EW 52-54? Do people suffer according to their deeds or not?

Doesn't Jesus say that He comes to "repay" every person for his work? "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." See Romans 2: 6; Rev. 22: 12. Compare 20: 10, 12, 13.

[pnattmbtc]

J:Yes, but again, God is the One who created the universe such that sin finally & "naturally" causes suffering.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

There's certainly nowhere in Scripture that teaches that God must set people on fire in order to make them suffer to pay for their sins.

You didn't address my point. What makes you think God is even capable of doing such a thing?

Quote:

J:People can try to explain it in such a way that it appears that God does not do what the Bible says He will do, but I think that's merely an attempt to please man's thinking and make God in man's image.

Scripture does not teach that God must set people on fire in order to make them suffer to pay for their sins.

[/quote']

Please show me any verse in the Bible that plainly and clearly contradicts Rev. 20: 9; Mal. 4: 1, 3; Is. 1: 28; 66: 24. Quote the Bible verse which says that the wicked do not die the way these and other verses say. Where is the verse which teaches fire does not come down from God out of heaven and consume the wicked?

Surely you can see your request is unreasonable. In order for me to show you some verse Y that contradicts verse X, I would have to agree that X could be or should be contradicted, right?

Here's a reasonable request, however. Please show me some Scripture which says that God must set people on fire in order to make them suffer to pay for their sins. (I'm assuming I've correctly represented your thinking. If not, please correct me.)

[John317]

John, I too take the Bible very seriously, as it reads, but I always want to make sure I am letting God explain Himself. The Lord has, in the Bible and in the Testimonies, showed us one example after another as to how we are to interpret His words; for example the words of God to Moses were He says "I will harden Pharaoh's heart;" we now know that God did not directly harden Pharaoh's heart but that He sent him light to correct his errors and to lead him in safe paths. It was by the rejection of that light that his eyes were blinded and his heart hardened. And then the Holy Spirit goes on to say that "When one ray of light is disregarded there is a partial benumbing of the spiritual perceptions and the second revealing is less clearly discerned." (D.A.322)

This is true, but the Bible itself also says that Pharaoh "hardened his heart." So in this case, there are Scriptures that explain clearly what took place. In the case of the destruction of the wicked, however, there is no text which explains that fire does not actually come from God out of heaven but that it comes from the wicked.

Upon what valid basis of interpretation can we say that the fire does not come from God out of heaven?

Where did the fire come from that destroyed the alters made by Elijah?

Where in Scripture do we have something said to come from God out of heaven when it actually came from a human source? Do we have one unquestionable example?

Quote:

And then we read that "What Pharaoh has done will be done again and again by men until the close of probation. God destroys no man; but when a man stifles conviction, when he turns from evidence, he is sowing unbelief and will reap as he has sown." RH, Vol.6, p.285.

There is no question that the wicked won't be able to blame God and make the claim that God was the One who destroyed them. People are destroyed by their own choices. But we are wrong to make that statement signify that God does not send fire out of heaven to burn up the wicked. God is not at fault when He does that. The wicked are reaping what they've sown. I don't see God's destroying the wicked as contradicting the statement that God destroys no man. What happens BEFORE the close of human probation is different from what happens AFTER the close of probation and AFTER the Great White Throne Judgment.

When we take everything the Bible and SOP have to say on the subject, and when we put those passages in their proper context, it is plain to me that her statement that "God destroys no man" is referring to the fact that the wicked cause their own destruction by choosing to reject God. This obviously refers to what occurs prior to the Judgment described in Rev. 20: 11, 12.

Quote:

Then we have read that "God slew Saul;" but we know from the Bible itself that Saul killed himself by falling on his sword. 1 Chron.10:14,4. Saul lost God's protection and he was "left with no power to control the evil passions of the soul and with no protection against the malice and enmity of Satan;" (G.C.36)

Then we discussed the case of when God said to David ....(P.P.739)

Then we read about the case of those who do not have the love of the truth;.... (G.C.431)

Then we read that when parents and rulers neglect the duty of punishing iniquity,....(P.P.728)

All of these passages of Scriptures, just to mention these, have been graciously explained to us by the Holy Spirit and yet these ministrations of the Holy Spirit have been ridiculed, spoken against, if not totally ignored or brushed aside as mere figments of man's imaginations;

I don't know who has ridiculed or brushed them aside. They are all true and certainly are not mere figments of man's imaginations.

Where you and I differ is that you believe that they signify that God does not destroy the wicked at the end of the 1000 years, whereas I take them to mean just what the Bible and Ellen White say: that God withdraws His protection from those who disobey Him and they suffer the results of their sins. You believe that this applies to the time of retributive justice after the Great White Throne Judgment, and I do not. God's destruction of the wicked at the end comes after they have already destroyed themselves by their choices and made themselves unfit for heaven.

Quote:

thus these inspired commentaries have absolutely no weight with those who wish to cling to the same old traditional understanding which sees God as directly punishing or destroying those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas. (D.A.487)

I don't think this is true. I myself do give them weight but I don't draw the same conclusion that you do about them. I don't see them as signifying that fire does not come from God.

DA 487 is not referring to the events that take place after the Great White Throne Judgment. It is speaking of the purpose of Christ's first coming and of His intention to save.

After the close of human probation, Christ will no longer be attempting to save the wicked. At that point, Christ will have ceased His work of High Priest and He will then become King and Judge. That makes a big difference. The difference is that the wicked then must reap the consequences of [or punishment for] their deeds. This is the clear view of both Scripture and the Spirit of prophecy.

[pnattmbtc]

All those wonderful verses teach that Christ did not come to judge and destroy but to save. At that time Jesus was a prophet and the Lamb of God. He came to give His life a ransom for many.

Those above verses have nothing to do with the judgment at the end of the 1000 years, which is the time of retributive justice. Remember that Jesus comes as King and Judge. Study Heb. 9: 28 and Rev. 19: 11-21.

For any truth to be understood, it's relation to the cross must be seen, which is the great truth around which all other truths cluster. This is a reason DA 764 is so important. It places the discussion of the destruction of the wicked in the context of the cross.

I've pointed out several times, at least three, to no effect, that a weakness I see in this position that God burns people alive is that those advocating it speak nothing of the cross. Why not? Because they see no need to, no connection to it.

God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It's an error to think of the wonderful verses of Luke 9 as having nothing to do with the destruction of the wicked. They reveal principles important to the discussion.

[John317]

There are other things in the Bible about which humans may think, "This can't be right." Some people think it can't be right for God to raise the dead. Others think it can't be right for God to prohibit homosexual relations. Others think it can't be right for God to have done what the Bible says God did in the Old Testament. Many think the God of the OT can't be the God of the New. Others think it can't be true that God made the world in 6 days and gave the Sabbath to Adam. The list could go on.

Conclusion: we shouldn't set up our ideas as the measure of truth but let the Bible speak and teach us what is truth.

Make the Bible the standard and we conform our lives and ideas to the Bible and don't require the Bible to conform to our ideas and lifestyle.

Quote:

I don't understand how you could think that God would have us sentence our family members to be burned alive for up to many days. She mentions the feelings of common humanity. You've admitted to having these feelings, as you said you wouldn't be able to do this yourself. You pointed out the reason for not being able to do so is because you don't hate sin like God does. You don't see a problem with this idea? Hating sin enables us to do things to people that on this earth could only be described as torture?[/quote']

I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it, but you are not dealing directly with Ellen White's statements in EW 52-54. It says the saints and Jesus examine the lives of the wicked and "METE OUT TO THE WICKED THE PORTION THEY MUST SUFFER, ACCORDING TO THE DEEDS DONE IN THE BODY."

People have lots of wrong "feelings." I have learned not to go by feelings when they contradict the Bible.

My honest, sincere belief here is that we need to conform our ideas to the Bible, and not measure truth by our sinful, natural feelings. Some people wouldn't even turn their "loved ones" into the police for murder. I understand that but it is not God's way. We would treat our loved ones better than others. The Bible says God is no respecter of persons.

What you call "torture" at the end of the 1000 years, the Bible and the SOP refer to as "punishment," "vengeance," "repayment," "recompense," "justice," etc. (However, see Rev. 14: 10.)

[pnattmbtc]

People can try to explain it in such a way that it appears that God does not do what the Bible says He will do, but I think that's merely an attempt to please man's thinking and make God in man's image. People do that a lot when they try to make it appear that sin is good and what's good is bad.

Me:I could respond in kind, and say something like, "People do what you do a lot when X," but is this really the way you'd like to see discussions like this go?

J:I did not say you are trying to make sin appear good. I am saying that people change the language of Scripture when they want to change the meaning of Scripture. An example of that is when people try to make sin appear as not-sin. When it comes to the destruction of the wicked, I am content to leave the language of Scripture as it is.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Please show me any verse in the Bible that plainly and clearly contradicts Rev. 20: 9; Mal. 4: 1' date=' 3; Is. 1: 28; 66: 24. Quote the Bible verse which says that the wicked do not die the way these and other verses say. Where is the verse which teaches fire does not come down from God out of heaven and consume the wicked?

Surely you can see your request is unreasonable. In order for me to show you some verse Y that contradicts verse X, I would have to agree that X could be or should be contradicted, right?[/quote']

Anyone can see that Rev. 20: 9; Mal. 4: 1, 3; Isaiah 1: 28; 66: 24 as well as numerous verses in the Gospels, teach that God will destroy the wicked with fire. You are saying God will do no such thing. It is for you to show a verse which says clearly that God will not destroy the wicked with fire. Can you do it?

Quote:

Here's a reasonable request, however. Please show me some Scripture which says that God must set people on fire in order to make them suffer to pay for their sins. (I'm assuming I've correctly represented your thinking. If not, please correct me.)

The word "must" is not used in the Bible but the Bible clearly says that God will use fire to burn the wicked up and Ellen White says that Jesus "metes out to the wicked the portion the wicked MUST suffer."

The Bible, then, is clear that God does burn up the wicked. I am confident that God would not do this if He didn't know it had to be done. I trust God and His way of dealing with the sin problem.

[Guest]

Amen

[pnattmbtc]

T:This get us back to the point I've made previously. It leads to the idea that you would be potentially sentencing your wife or son or mother to be burned alive for a certain amount of time. I don't understand how you could think such a thing. Isn't there something within you that goes, "This can't be right"?

J:There are other things in the Bible about which humans may think, "This can't be right." Some people think it can't be right for God to raise the dead. Others think it can't be right for God to prohibit homosexual relations. Others think it can't be right for God to have done what the Bible says God did in the Old Testament. Many think the God of the OT can't be the God of the New. Others think it can't be true that God made the world in 6 days and gave the Sabbath to Adam. The list could go on.

Conclusion: we shouldn't set up our ideas as the measure of truth but let the Bible speak and teach us what is truth.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The Bible does not teach that God must set people on fire in order to make them suffer to pay for their sins.

J:Please tell the words of the warning found in the Third Angels Message regarding what will happen to those who worship the beast and receive its mark.

Is there suffering portrayed there? Long or short suffering?

Doesn't this say they will be tormented forever? Eternal torment, right?

Suffering, yes, but not endless suffering. The effects of the punishment will have no end, but the suffering itself will come to an end. Big difference. The difference is that people suffer according to their deeds. Endless torment would obviously not be suffering according to their deeds.

Please tell what this verse says, and then tell how you understand it.

The point of it is that God is telling people that if they disobey Him, they will suffer terribly for it. He wants people to avoid suffering. He takes no joy from suffering.

[pnattmbtc]

I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it, but you are not dealing directly with Ellen White's statements in EW 52-54.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

People can try to explain it in such a way that it appears that God does not do what the Bible says He will do, but I think that's merely an attempt to please man's thinking and make God in man's image. People do that a lot when they try to make it appear that sin is good and what's good is bad.

Me:I could respond in kind, and say something like, "People do what you do a lot when X," but is this really the way you'd like to see discussions like this go?

J:I did not say you are trying to make sin appear good. I am saying that people change the language of Scripture when they want to change the meaning of Scripture. An example of that is when people try to make sin appear as not-sin. When it comes to the destruction of the wicked, I am content to leave the language of Scripture as it is.

Reading this in a straight-forward way appears to me to be implying that I am

1.Trying to explain things in such a way that it appears that God does not do what the Bible says He will do.

2.Trying to make it appear that sin is good and what's good is bad.

Please don't write things like this. Please just stick to the arguments involved, and leave out the comments about "people." I think you can adequately make any points you need to make without these references to "people."

I do believe that you are explaining the Scriptures in such a way as to make it appear that God does not do what the Bible says He will do. Whether that is the intention or not, I would not make a venture to say. But I do know that this is the practical effect of your explanation.

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

Speaking as moderator:

The poster was sticking with the argument and there was no personal attack.

If, however, you sincerely believe there was such an attack on you, you are free to appeal to the moderators by using the appeal process created for that purpose.

You could also PM me if you want to and we could discuss it that way. :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Me:Surely you can see your request is unreasonable. In order for me to show you some verse Y that contradicts verse X, I would have to agree that X could be or should be contradicted, right?

J:Anyone can see that Rev. 20: 9; Mal. 4: 1, 3; Isaiah 1: 28; 66: 24 as well as numerous verses in the Gospels, teach that God will destroy the wicked with fire. You are saying God will do no such thing. It is for you to show a verse which says clearly that God will not destroy the wicked with fire. Can you do it?

[Guest]

Wait! Let's go back to my point. You are asking me to show you some verse which contradicts another verse. In order for me to do so, I'd have to admit that the verse you're bringing up could be or should be contradicted. Do you not see this is an unreasonable request?

Rev 20:9 And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and encircled the camp of the saints, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

If you had a text that contradicted this, you would show it in a heartbeat instead of crying foul.

[John317]

Here is a comment from the SOP:

What's the context here? What teaching is Ellen White writing about in regard to the above comment?

Is she denying, or even speaking of, the final destruction of the wicked as Rev. 20 describes it, and as she herself describes it in detail in Early Writings and Great Controversy?

Isn't she talking about the fact that the righteous wouldn't be happy to see people suffering in hell eternally, without end?

Therefore the words you quote here are really out of context, since we're talking about the Bible picture of the wicked being utterly destroyed by fire. That seems like a very significant difference to me, and it shows the quote cannot properly be used to suggest that humans won't do what Ellen White says they will do in Early Writings, pp. 52-53, 290-291. There she says plainly that the saints assist Jesus in "meting out to the wicked the portion the wicked must suffer." That won't mean they lack feelings of love.

God is love and is portrayed as having feelings of love, also. The punishment of the wicked is because God is both just and loving.

I think this is a concept and teaching that a lot of people have a hard time dealing with.

[pnattmbtc]

J:Suffering, yes, but not endless suffering. The effects of the punishment will have no end, but the suffering itself will come to an end. Big difference. The difference is that people suffer according to their deeds. Endless torment would obviously not be suffering according to their deeds.

[pnattmbtc]

Me:Reading this in a straight-forward way appears to me to be implying that I am

1.Trying to explain things in such a way that it appears that God does not do what the Bible says He will do.

2.Trying to make it appear that sin is good and what's good is bad.

Please don't write things like this. Please just stick to the arguments involved, and leave out the comments about "people." I think you can adequately make any points you need to make without these references to "people."

J:I do believe that you are explaining the Scriptures in such a way as to make it appear that God does not do what the Bible says He will do.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

J:Suffering, yes, but not endless suffering. The effects of the punishment will have no end, but the suffering itself will come to an end. Big difference. The difference is that people suffer according to their deeds. Endless torment would obviously not be suffering according to their deeds.

The text says "forever and ever." If one were to do what you claim to be doing (i.e., reading the text according to "ordinary language") one would be constrained to believe in eternal torment. Instead what you are doing, in order to correctly interpret the "forever and ever," is to compare Scripture with Scripture, as opposed to just reading one text "as it reads."

First of all, I think it's safe to say you and I both agree on what "forever and ever" means in this context.

Secondly, the fact that we should accept the Bible "just as it reads" does not mean we jettison all well-recognized principles of hermeneutics.

I have a feeling you misunderstand my meaning here when I talk about accepting the plain language of the Bible just as it reads.

Ellen White herself is the one who advises us to accept the Bible as it reads. She said this many times in various ways.

Finally, I believe you are wrong to conclude that if I say the fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes the wicked, that I am therefore obligated to believe that the wicked will burn endlessly.

If that is true, then you would have to say that Ellen White was obligated to believe the wicked suffer endlessly, because she herself taught plainly that the fire that destroys the wicked comes down from God. GC 672. See all of her comments on the destruction of the wicked in Exhaustive Ellen G. White Commentary On Revelation, particularly those on Rev. 20.

[pnattmbtc]

What's the context here?

[John317]

[pnattmbtc]

J:First of all, I think it's safe to say you and I both agree on what "forever and ever" means in this context.

Secondly, the fact that we should accept the Bible "just as it reads" does not mean we jettison all well-recognized principles of hermeneutics.

I have a feeling you misunderstand my meaning here when I talk about accepting the plain language of the Bible just as it reads.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

In the Garden of Eden, didn't God tell Adam he would die if He disobeyed God's command not to partake of the fruit of a particular tree?

At the Flood, didn't Noah preach that if people didn't get into the ark, they would be destroyed in the waters of the flood?

At Sodom, didn't God send a message to Lot and his family that if they didn't obey and get out of the city, they would "be consumed in the punishment of the city"?

Isn't that fire that "consumed" the wicked used in the Bible (Jude 7) as an example of the consuming of the wicked after the Great White Throne Judgment?

Please explain your reasoning here. You're obviously asking these questions for some reason. I asked you if you saw the incongruity between ideas such as force not being a principle of God's government and His saying:

Quote:

Please accept my invitation to accept My Son as your personal Savior. If you don't, I'll cause you suffering that can't even be imagined. I will burn you alive for days. And you will feel the excruciating pain as long as there is one particle left of you for the fire to prey upon.[/quote']

So what's the connection between my question to you here, and the questions you wrote in response?