A Discussion of the Cause of the Flood

[John317]

Hey you should've said "as plain as the nose on Mr. Murphy's face."

[Guest]

it is

[Guest]

Hey John, I found a site where you can get all of Jones and Waggoner's books in PDF.

[John317]

I would love that. What is it?

I gotta hit the hay here now.

[Guest]

http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=386

I also got a Samuel Pipim book there called "Recieving the Word". I'm reading it now.

[John317]

OK, I didn't go to bed yet. I see it includes Lessons from the Reformation. Thanks! I intend to read that and more.

And now for real.

[Guest]

Me Too

[John317]

http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=386

I also got a Samuel Pipim book there called "Recieving the Word". I'm reading it now.

I read it already. Very good book. Keep reading it.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

The final judgment.

The context is the belief that the righteous will be made happy by the sight of the wicked suffering. For proof of this' date=' see GC 535. Examine carefully paragraph 1.

Therefore it is not the final judgment but the idea that the dead are suffering now and that the righteous will be happy to see them go on suffering without end.

Quote:

JOHN317--What teaching is Ellen White writing about in regard to the above comment?

Quote:

Torturing the wicked by setting them on fire for eternity.

Examine GC 535 carefully:

She is not talking about the fact that the wicked burn up but that they will never cease to suffer. And she is talking about the idea that the righteous would receive pleasure from seeing them suffer endlessly.

Therefore, again, the context of the quote proves that it has nothing to do with the righteous assisting Christ in judging the wicked as the SDA church teaches it. See the explanations of SDA beliefs on the subject in the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe. [/quote']

The context is the final judgment. First she discusses the errors of the eternal torment idea, and then she goes into the errors of universalism.

The paragraph under discussion was this one:

Quote:

Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage? No, no; such is not the teaching of the Book of God.(GC 535)

These questions certainly are appropriate to ask in the context of our discussion. You have an idea that people will be burned alive, so the questions she is asking comes to mind, especially given the fact that you yourself have admitted that you cannot do the very things being talked about!

Why can't you sentence your loved ones to be burned alive for days? Is it because you don't hate sin enough? Because your sinful, natural feeling do not allow it? Or is it because you share the feelings of common humanity? You've suggested it's the former, but I think it's far more likely to be the latter. I don't see why hating sin would enable us to treat others more cruelly. (Assuming you agree that sentencing people to be set on fire is cruel. Perhaps you don't.)

[pnattmbtc]

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

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.

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.

Me:This is better worded than the last time. At least your not hiding behind the word "people." It still seems rather personal to me, as opposed to sticking to the issues.

J:I wasn't "hiding behind the word 'people'."

?

[pnattmbtc]

Psa 62:12 Also unto you, O Lord, belongs mercy: for you render to every man according to his work.

2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may be recompensed for the things done in his body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad.

Why would you read these verses to mean that people would be set on fire to be made to suffer? It strikes as very odd that one read a verse like this as supporting that position.

Why can't the suffering the lost experience be the result of their sin? Why must it be an arbitrarily imposed punishment?

The reason why is because of the idea that sin is innocuous. If sin doesn't cause suffering or death, and it is determined that the lost must suffer and die, then this suffering and death must be imposed upon them artificially. This is one of the weakness of the burning people alive idea, imo. It doesn't recognize the sinfulness of sin. Sin has the power to make people suffer and die. It ruins the character, so that the presence of God is a consuming fire. The lost would rather have a mountain fall on their heads then to look at the face of their redeemer.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

You said,

Quote:

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. See post#282876

You wrote:

Quote:

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.

I nowhere concluded this. You understood what I meant, as in a different post you correctly interpreted it, in speaking of proper hermeneutics. So why are you saying you believe I'm wrong to conclude something I've never concluded?

I asked you what your reasoning was. You quoted this:

Quote:

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.

How do you get from this statement to

Quote:

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.[/quote']

That doesn't make any sense. Clearly I was speaking of the "forever and ever" portion of the text. I said, "The text says 'forever and ever'". I didn't say anything about saying fire comes down from heaven to consume the wicked means eternal torment.

This doesn't look to me like a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote. What do you think?

[pnattmbtc]

I'm showing that it is not contrary to God's way to warn sinners of the consequences of sin in order to persuade them to obey Him. This comes up on the context of the Third Angels Messages. We are to preach to people that there are serious and terrible consequences to worshipping the beast and receiving its mark. The consequence is that those who worship the beast and receive his mark will be lost and finally destroyed in the fires that God made for Satan and his fallen angels.

Many people think that God would never use warnings like this to get people to think seriously about the issues of true worship, but He has done so in the past and He will do it again before the end. He does it out of love, but those who refuse to listen will pay the penalty.

I agree with most of this. The part I would disagree with is that God will burn alive those who don't do what He says. The idea that God would say, "Please hear what I have to say. I love you and have given My Son to die for you. Please accept Him as your personal Savior. If you don't, I will set you on fire to suffer beyond your wildest imaginations" is not in harmony with either His character or the principles of His government, of which forcing the will is not one. Telling someone to do what you tell them, or else you will burn them alive, is compelling power. It was compelling power when Nicodemus did it, and when it was done in the Middle Ages. The fact that it is God doing it instead of someone else does not change the character of "Do what I tell you, or I will burn you alive."

[Guest]

Why would you read these verses to mean that people would be set on fire to be made to suffer? It strikes as very odd that one read a verse like this as supporting that position.

uuhhh, because that's the way the Bible and Ellen White say it will happen?

Notice that the text says "God will render to every man according to his work." And that it does not say that "Sin will render" this is very important.

[pnattmbtc]

Let's take a look at the paragraph I was citing:

Quote:

Where, in the pages of God's word, is such teaching to be found? Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage? No, no; such is not the teaching of the Book of God. Those who present the views expressed in the quotations given above may be learned and even honest men, but they are deluded by the sophistry of Satan. He leads them to misconstrue strong expressions of Scripture, giving to the language the coloring of bitterness and malignity which pertains to himself, but not to our Creator. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?" Ezekiel 33:11.

What would be gained to God should we admit that He delights in witnessing unceasing tortures; that He is regaled with the groans and shrieks and imprecations of the suffering creatures whom He holds in the flames of hell?

As far as I can tell, your view is the same as their view, except for the time element. Indeed, the time element is the only issue you're raising. Elsewhere you spoke of not taking delight in the suffering of the wicked as an issue, but you seem to be a bit inconsistent regarding that one, as you also elsewhere also spoke of the righteous' rejoicing as the wicked were being punished.

So their view is that God will burn people alive, and your view is that God will burn people alive.

Ellen White asks the questions:

Quote:

Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage?[/quote']

These questions apply just as much to the concept of burning people alive for many days as it does to burning them alive forever. Indeed, you've admitted that you yourself could not do the thing being discussed here, so you seem to have some recognition of the issues Ellen White is raising.

Notice she refers to the eternal burning of people alive as "unceasing tortures." So we can refer to your idea as "ceasing tortures." If burning people alive forever is "unceasing tortures" then burning them alive for many days is non-eternal tortures.

Also your seem to have the idea that entire SDA church believed as you do, that God will set people alive in order to make them suffer, to pay for their sins. This simply isn't true. The pioneers appeared to have the ideas I've been sharing in regards to the judgment. Teresa has quoted a few. I know Jones and Waggoner had the same ideas I have. I don't know of any pioneer who had the ideas you have.

[pnattmbtc]

J:This is misinterpreting what I said.

I never said that God would have anyone on this earth burn up other people.

Therefore, it is inaccurate to say what you've said here.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Why would you read these verses to mean that people would be set on fire to be made to suffer? It strikes as very odd that one read a verse like this as supporting that position.

uuhhh, because that's the way the Bible and Ellen White say it will happen?

Notice that the text says "God will render to every man according to his work." And that it does not say that "Sin will render" this is very important.

The Bible never says that people will be burned alive in order to make them suffer for the sins they have committed. I've asked for some text which says this, and none have been produced. Certainly the text you cited doesn't say that.

Also, I'm curious, do you agree with John's statements in regards to the sentencing of loved ones? Specifically, John says that he couldn't do this for his loved ones, and offered as the reason why that he didn't hate sin like God does. Do these responses describe your thoughts on this as well?

[Guest]

If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error…. {DD 38}

A great work can be done by presenting to the people the Bible just as it reads. {CCh 62}

If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says. {LHU 313}

My heart was made glad in the Lord, and I could not but exclaim, "What hath God wrought?" as I looked upon this large company who have accepted the Bible just as it reads, thus placing their feet on the solid platform of truth, and heard them speak of their faith, believing as a child believes and trusts its parents. {BEcho, January 1, 1892 par. 19}

[Guest]

The Bible never says that people will be burned alive in order to make them suffer for the sins they have committed.

It absolutely does.

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.

These people encircling the the beloved city are not dead.

[wayfinder]

Matthew 24:42-44 "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. "But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. "For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.

When do you think He will come?

For as it was in the days of Noah...

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I'm showing that it is not contrary to God's way to warn sinners of the consequences of sin in order to persuade them to obey Him. This comes up on the context of the Third Angels Messages. We are to preach to people that there are serious and terrible consequences to worshipping the beast and receiving its mark. The consequence is that those who worship the beast and receive his mark will be lost and finally destroyed in the fires that God made for Satan and his fallen angels.

Many people think that God would never use warnings like this to get people to think seriously about the issues of true worship, but He has done so in the past and He will do it again before the end. He does it out of love, but those who refuse to listen will pay the penalty.

I agree with most of this. The part I would disagree with is that God will burn alive those who don't do what He says. The idea that God would say, "Please hear what I have to say. I love you and have given My Son to die for you. Please accept Him as your personal Savior. If you don't, I will set you on fire to suffer beyond your wildest imaginations" is not in harmony with either His character or the principles of His government, of which forcing the will is not one. Telling someone to do what you tell them, or else you will burn them alive, is compelling power. It was compelling power when Nicodemus did it, and when it was done in the Middle Ages. The fact that it is God doing it instead of someone else does not change the character of "Do what I tell you, or I will burn you alive."

God will do whatever it takes to get the attention of people, and sometimes that means the use of dire warnings and threats. Compare the following verses with Rev. 14: 9-11.

Isaiah 65: 11-15:

11 “ But you are those who forsake the LORD,

Who forget My holy mountain,

Who prepare a table for Gad,[a]

And who furnish a drink offering for Meni.

12 Therefore I will number you for the sword,

And you shall all bow down to the slaughter;

Because, when I called, you did not answer;

When I spoke, you did not hear,

But did evil before My eyes,

And chose that in which I do not delight.”

13 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD:

“ Behold, My servants shall eat,

But you shall be hungry;

Behold, My servants shall drink,

But you shall be thirsty;

Behold, My servants shall rejoice,

But you shall be ashamed;

14 Behold, My servants shall sing for joy of heart,

But you shall cry for sorrow of heart,

And wail for grief of spirit.

15 You shall leave your name as a curse to My chosen;

For the Lord GOD will slay you,

And call His servants by another name;

[Guest]

Num 16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

Neither were these men dead when this happened. So you see the Lord has already burned up people that were alive. What makes you think he won't do what he says on that day?

[John317]

... John says that he couldn't do this for his loved ones [i.e., sentence his loved ones to death,edited by John], and offered as the reason why that he didn't hate sin like God does.

I never said that God would have anyone on this earth burn up other people.

Therefore, it is inaccurate to say what you've said here.

What you are referring to occurs during the 1000 years. Study EW 52, 53. Ellen White wrote that Jesus Christ makes the decision, in unison with the saints, as to the "portion which the wicked must suffer," and Jesus announces the sentence of eternal death.

Whether an individual today would want to [or "could"] sentence a loved one to death is not even relevant to the issue of the destruction of the wicked.

The question is theoretical, and it doesn't matter how a person feels about it. The fact is that God has revealed to us through the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy that the saints will indeed assist Christ in the examination of the books of record and in "meting out to the wicked the portion they must suffer."

God is not asking or requiring humans to do that now. Now is the time to try to help save people for God's kingdom, not sentence them.

In the Investigative Judgment, however, we know that names of people are being blotted out of the Book of Life, meaning that they will come up in the second resurrection and will be judged and destroyed. The Pre-advent Judgment is going on right now in the heavenly sanctuary, and a God of love and of truth is in the process of blotting out sins and blotting out names. That is what the Bible teaches and it's what the SDA church teaches.

[Guest]

The Bible never says that people will be burned alive in order to make them suffer for the sins they have committed.

It absolutely does.

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.

These people encircling the beloved city are not dead.

Num 16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

Neither were these men dead when this happened. So you see the Lord has already burned up people that were alive. What makes you think he won't do what he says on that day?

Num 3:4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered unholy fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai

For burning the incense they took common instead of the sacred fire which God Himself had kindled, and which He had commanded to be used for this purpose. For this sin a fire went out from the Lord and devoured them in the sight of the people. {PP 359.2}

Another example of God burning up living people. You seem to think this is a strange doctrine, that God would do such a thing, but he has left us example after example. To say that God won't do what he has said in the end, dosn't even make sense.

[wayfinder]

Here is another one Richard.

Revelation 11:5

And if anyone wants to harm them, fire flows out of their mouth and devours their enemies; so if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this way.

"he must be killed in this way" this would mean that it is the fire that kills them. They would have to be alive to be killed.