Sin destroy's itself...

[wayfinder]

As a people the Jews had failed of fulfilling God's purpose, and the vineyard was taken from them. The privileges they had abused, the work they had slighted, was entrusted to others. (COL 295, 296)

Matthew 21:43

"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.

How is the above text a prophecy of the distruction of Jerusalem? This prophecy was fulfilled in 1844. The prophecy of the ten bridesmaids, where the bridesmaids are said to represent the kingdom of heaven.

[Guest]

As a people the Jews had failed of fulfilling God's purpose, and the vineyard was taken from them. The privileges they had abused, the work they had slighted, was entrusted to others. (COL 295, 296)

Matthew 21:43

"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.

How is the above text a prophecy of the distruction of Jerusalem? This prophecy was fulfilled in 1844. The prophecy of the ten bridesmaids, where the bridesmaids are said to represent the kingdom of heaven.

Wayfinder, why are you quoting EGW? You know you don't believe that stuff.

[wayfinder]

I copied that quote from LifeHiscost post, because it supported my understanding. I didn't know if it was being used against my understanding of in support of.

[Ted Oplinger]

Mmmm mmmm mmmm

Not knowing how or wherefore of your quoting?

Could get you in deep water 'round these parts...

[Twilight]

Mark, here's my question:

It seems the idea being expressed here is that God is losing the Great Controversy, and will continue to lose it, until He resorts to force and violence to win it. He'll win it, eventually, because He is stronger than anyone else, and so can apply greater force and violence than anyone else.

I have more to say on this topic, but before going on, I'd like to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly.

You responded:

Quote:

My position has been stated, please accept it as stated:

The position being made is this:

Unless God steps in, sin will destroy everyone and everything.

God by being inactive would "lose" the Great Controversy, because sin would destroy His whole universe.

No one is suggesting that God has been inactive. So your statement here is inadequate in regards to my question, which has to do with whether it is your position that God wins the Great Controversy by using force and violence.

I don't understand your reticence to specify your view regarding this point.

A follow up on what you said. How is it that you see that sin would destroy everything? In particular, how would it destroy other worlds where sin is not known, or unfallen angels?

The only reason that sin has not destroyed unfallen worlds is because God has specifically warred against that.

It is Gods influence that has prevented it.

Do you think that Sin would not have corrupted the whole universe, if God had done nothing?

[Twilight]

You have said that if God did not intervene, sin would destroy everything. So if sin has the power to destroy, why would God have to take arbitrary action to destroy those who sin? Why not simply allow it to do its destructive work on those who have chosen sin?

Because it does not stop there, it contaminates everything.

This is the very reason God has to destroy it.

But the only way He can destroy it, is when the whole Universe agrees that it is indeed a loving act to destroy sin.

This is why satan has been given room to "prove his point and nature".

This is the whole point of the 1000 years judgement.

God will be vindicated.

The whole universe will agree that Sin needs to be destroyed.

Then it will be destroyed.

And not one seed of doubt will be left in the minds of the universe as to the fact it was a "loving" act.

So this is why we have to be careful.

When we say that God does not have the right to destroy, we are presenting one of satans arguments.

We are presenting error of the very worst kind.

We are also undermining a foundational position of the SDA church.

We really have to be careful with this one.

It is a false teaching.

Mark

[Twilight]

The parable of the vineyard was a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem:

Quote:

Christ would have averted the doom of the Jewish nation if the people had received Him. But envy and jealousy made them implacable. They determined that they would not receive Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. They rejected the Light of the world, and thenceforth their lives were surrounded with darkness as the darkness of midnight. The doom foretold came upon the Jewish nation. Their own fierce passions, uncontrolled, wrought their ruin. In their blind rage they destroyed one another. Their rebellious, stubborn pride brought upon them the wrath of their Roman conquerors. Jerusalem was destroyed, the temple laid in ruins, and its site plowed like a field. The children of Judah perished by the most horrible forms of death. Millions were sold, to serve as bondmen in heathen lands.

As a people the Jews had failed of fulfilling God's purpose, and the vineyard was taken from them. The privileges they had abused, the work they had slighted, was entrusted to others. (COL 295, 296)

"The Great Controversy," chapter 1, covers the destruction of Jerusalem in detail. Here's an except:

Quote:

The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy,the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them... (GC 35)

From this we see the following principles taught by the parable of the vineyard:

1.By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, one may cause the protection of God to be removed.

2.The great deceiver works to present his own work of destruction as the work of God.

3. God does destroy, but Satan wants to misrepresent Gods act of destruction as being of the same nature as his acts of destruction.

Do you mind if I add that?

[skyblue888]

The Lord does mind.

This is twisting those words or adding to the words of inspiration like I have never seen before. Truly, it never ceases to amaze me. I can see now more than ever before how true the words of inspiration are 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. The darkness increases until it is night in the soul." D.A.322.

Solemn warning.

How can one who claims to have any spirituality at all read these words from page 35 of The Great Controversy and not understand their simplicity is a marvel to me. The statement clearly says that in the destruction of Jerusalem Satan was seeking to conceal his own work. Ask anyone who can read English, even the people who have no spiritual discernment, and they will tell you that it means exactly what it says and it says exactly what it means with no possibility of ever misconstruing these simple words.

On page 28 of the same book there is a statement which confirms the statement on page 35:

"Then God withdrew His protection from them and removed His restraining power from Satan and his angels, and the nation was left to the control of the leader she had chosen."

Then on page 35 it is clearly written there that Satan is seeking to conceal his own work to make it appear that it was the work of God. Apparently he has succeeded for "The understanding of the people of God has been blinded, for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our good and gracious Lord has been presented before the people clothed in the attributes of Satan." 1 S.M.355.

Once again, to be honest, here is what I believe is the real problem with so many of us:

"Having once expressed an opinion or decision, they are often too proud to retract it, and try to prove themselves in the right, until they come to believe that they are. It is dangerous to utter a word of doubt, dangerous to question and criticize divine light. The habit of careless and irreverent criticism reacts upon the character, in fostering irreverence and unbelief. Many a man indulging this habit has gone on unconscious of danger, until he was ready to criticize and reject the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, 'Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.'" D.A.323.

Another most solemn warning.

Please read the whole page.

sky

[Gerr]

Just tagging on.

Yeah, right. Sin will destroy itself. Same way meningitis

destoys itself after the kid is dead. Same way cancer

destroys itself after its host can no longer support it!!!

[skyblue888]

Sin destroys itselt in the sense that "The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is no power to control the evil passions of the soul and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." G.C.36.

This is how sin destroys itself. It is persistence in unbelief and in rejecting light. Then the Spirit of the Lord has no other choice but to leave. The restraining power of God is in a measure removed from the sinner until it is fully removed. This is how sin destroys itself.

sky

[SivartM]

I certainly am glad that God loves us so much that someday He's going to carry out His righteous and perfect judgment get rid of evil once and for all!

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

2.The great deceiver works to present his own work of destruction as the work of God.

So much so that he can get God to say: I will do this?

See that's where you err.

So much so that people attribute his work to God, clearly.

[skyblue888]

Righteous and perfect judgment. Yes, Absolutely. But we need to keep these words in mind: "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." E.G. White, MR 14, 3.1.

And that simply means that the sinner is then "left with no power to control the evil passions of the soul and with no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." G.C.36,35.

This is what Mrs. White was shown. We must be careful not to add to these words or take anything away from them for they are stating an everlasting truth.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Mark, here's my question:

It seems the idea being expressed here is that God is losing the Great Controversy, and will continue to lose it, until He resorts to force and violence to win it. He'll win it, eventually, because He is stronger than anyone else, and so can apply greater force and violence than anyone else.

I have more to say on this topic, but before going on, I'd like to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly.

You responded:

Quote:

My position has been stated, please accept it as stated:

The position being made is this:

Unless God steps in, sin will destroy everyone and everything.

God by being inactive would "lose" the Great Controversy, because sin would destroy His whole universe.

No one is suggesting that God has been inactive. So your statement here is inadequate in regards to my question, which has to do with whether it is your position that God wins the Great Controversy by using force and violence.

I don't understand your reticence to specify your view regarding this point.

A follow up on what you said. How is it that you see that sin would destroy everything? In particular, how would it destroy other worlds where sin is not known, or unfallen angels?

The only reason that sin has not destroyed unfallen worlds is because God has specifically warred against that.

It is Gods influence that has prevented it.

Do you think that Sin would not have corrupted the whole universe, if God had done nothing?

My question is how you see that sin would have destroyed unfallen worlds. You say this would have happened had God's influence not prevented it. What did God do to prevent this destruction from taking place? How would sin have destroyed those who had not sinned?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

So much so that he can get God to say: I will do this?

See that's where you err.

So much so that people attribute his work to God' date=' clearly. [/quote']

Exactly. The Lord has already explained what He means when He says, "I will do this" or "I will do that" but for some it is as though He had not.

sky

[skyblue888]

Sin would eventually have destroyed the universe if Christ had failed in His mission to expose the works of the devil while upon the earth and to manifest the character of God only. If Satan could have caused Jesus to sin by making him lose his temper only once or using His power to perform a miracle to deliver himself from his temptations and constant attacks, sin and Satan would have won the day and the whole universe would have been in peril.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Me:You have said that if God did not intervene, sin would destroy everything. So if sin has the power to destroy, why would God have to take arbitrary action to destroy those who sin? Why not simply allow it to do its destructive work on those who have chosen sin? (from here anything quoted is not me).

Because it does not stop there, it contaminates everything.

[Twilight]

The Lord does mind.

This is twisting those words or adding to the words of inspiration like I have never seen before. Truly, it never ceases to amaze me. I can see now more than ever before how true the words of inspiration are 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. The darkness increases until it is night in the soul." D.A.322.

Solemn warning.

How can one who claims to have any spirituality at all read these words from page 35 of The Great Controversy and not understand their simplicity is a marvel to me. The statement clearly says that in the destruction of Jerusalem Satan was seeking to conceal his own work. Ask anyone who can read English, even the people who have no spiritual discernment, and they will tell you that it means exactly what it says and it says exactly what it means with no possibility of ever misconstruing these simple words.

On page 28 of the same book there is a statement which confirms the statement on page 35:

"Then God withdrew His protection from them and removed His restraining power from Satan and his angels, and the nation was left to the control of the leader she had chosen."

Then on page 35 it is clearly written there that Satan is seeking to conceal his own work to make it appear that it was the work of God. Apparently he has succeeded for "The understanding of the people of God has been blinded, for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our good and gracious Lord has been presented before the people clothed in the attributes of Satan." 1 S.M.355.

Once again, to be honest, here is what I believe is the real problem with so many of us:

"Having once expressed an opinion or decision, they are often too proud to retract it, and try to prove themselves in the right, until they come to believe that they are. It is dangerous to utter a word of doubt, dangerous to question and criticize divine light. The habit of careless and irreverent criticism reacts upon the character, in fostering irreverence and unbelief. Many a man indulging this habit has gone on unconscious of danger, until he was ready to criticize and reject the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, 'Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.'" D.A.323.

Another most solemn warning.

Please read the whole page.

sky

Please read the statement again Sky.

It is fully conversant with scripture.

It just does not agree with the idea that a few statements taken out of context in the SOP should re-interpret the whole bible...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

So much so that he can get God to say: I will do this?

See that's where you err.

So much so that people attribute his work to God' date=' clearly. [/quote']

What if the error is in saying that God does not destroy, because if He did, He is of the same character as Satan?

What if we just do not understand that one form of destruction is evil.

That another is merciful?

What if we then cause God's character to be darkened?

By saying all acts of destruction are evil.

Do you not realise that if we present this view as "truth", we have cast judgement on Gods right to destroy?

Mark

[Twilight]

Righteous and perfect judgment. Yes, Absolutely. But we need to keep these words in mind: "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." E.G. White, MR 14, 3.1.

And that simply means that the sinner is then "left with no power to control the evil passions of the soul and with no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." G.C.36,35.

This is what Mrs. White was shown. We must be careful not to add to these words or take anything away from them for they are stating an everlasting truth.

sky

I have one word to say about these quotes Sky:

Context.

Mark

[Stewart (SDA)]

Sin destroys itselt in the sense that "The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is no power to control the evil passions of the soul and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." G.C.36.

This is how sin destroys itself. It is persistence in unbelief and in rejecting light. Then the Spirit of the Lord has no other choice but to leave. The restraining power of God is in a measure removed from the sinner until it is fully removed. This is how sin destroys itself.

sky

Speaking to His people, God exhorts them to be instructed, lest, as He says, His soul departs from them... and so it would be that He would make their land desolate.

Sometimes I believe we have little realization of the things that God is shielding this world from, but as that shielding slowly withdraws (being grieved away), and the destructions enter...

"...thus hath the Lord of hosts said, Hew ye down trees, and cast a mount against Jerusalem: this is the city to be visited; she is wholly oppression in the midst of her. As a fountain casteth out her waters, so she casteth out her wickedness: violence and spoil is heard in her; before me continually is grief and wounds. Be thou instructed, O Jerusalem, lest My soul depart from thee; lest I make thee desolate, a land not inhabited." (Jer 6)

_____

Stewart

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The only reason that sin has not destroyed unfallen worlds is because God has specifically warred against that.

It is Gods influence that has prevented it.

Do you think that Sin would not have corrupted the whole universe, if God had done nothing?

My question is how you see that sin would have destroyed unfallen worlds. You say this would have happened had God's influence not prevented it. What did God do to prevent this destruction from taking place? How would sin have destroyed those who had not sinned?

There was war in heaven...

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

The above texts answer your question.

There was "war" and there will be "war".

Now we could turn around and try to present this "war" as some type of hippy march, but the biblical language does not present it as such.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

So much so that people attribute his work to God' date=' clearly. [/quote']

Exactly. The Lord has already explained what He means when He says, "I will do this" or "I will do that" but for some it is as though He had not.

sky

No...

It says that in some instances that is the case.

Not in all instances.

Mark

[Twilight]

Sin would eventually have destroyed the universe if Christ had failed in His mission to expose the works of the devil while upon the earth and to manifest the character of God only. If Satan could have caused Jesus to sin by making him lose his temper only once or using His power to perform a miracle to deliver himself from his temptations and constant attacks, sin and Satan would have won the day and the whole universe would have been in peril.

sky

God has a Holy indignation.

God has His wrath.

To say that God to reveal that is sin, is walking very close to the wire Sky.

If we misrepresent Gods character in any way it is sin.

On that basis, I am not willing to take some out of context quotes and charge God with sin if He does not fit those quotes exactly.

I am not willing to "box" God based on some misapplied statements.

And I would definitely not be willing to suggest to people that unless they recieve this "truth" they are going to end up "spiritually blind".

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Me:You have said that if God did not intervene, sin would destroy everything. So if sin has the power to destroy, why would God have to take arbitrary action to destroy those who sin? Why not simply allow it to do its destructive work on those who have chosen sin? (from here anything quoted is not me).

Because it does not stop there, it contaminates everything.

How?

Quote:

This is the very reason God has to destroy it.

If it destroys, why can't God just let it destroy? Surely He could prevent it from contaminating others while it was destroying those who sin.

Quote:

But the only way He can destroy it, is when the whole Universe agrees that it is indeed a loving act to destroy sin.

It seems to me that what DA 764 is actually saying is that the only way He can allow those who have chosen sin to perish is when the whole Universe understands that death is the inevitable result of sin.

Quote:

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin.(DA 764)

Quote:

This is why satan has been given room to "prove his point and nature".

This is the whole point of the 1000 years judgement.

God will be vindicated.

The whole universe will agree that Sin needs to be destroyed.

Then it will be destroyed.

If sin destroys those who practice it, why would God need to destroy it? And why would God use violence and force to destroy it, when His kingdom has nothing to do with violence or force?

Quote:

God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. (DA 759)

This isn't arguing that God couldn't destroy Satan by force temporarily, but could later one when things were better understood, but that force is not a principle of God's government at all. It's only found in Satan's government. So why would God use a tool to destroy Satan which is only found in Satan's government? If the prevailing power of God's government is truth and love, doesn't it make a lot more sense that God would use the prevailing power of His government to destroy Satan?

Indeed, this is precisely what will happen:

Quote:

By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.(DA 764)

The glory of God is His character. God is love. In DA 108 it says that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. Light is truth. So we see that, indeed, the prevailing power of God's government, love and truth, are the means by which sin will be destroyed. Not force or violence, which are not principles of His government, but of the enemy.

Quote:

And not one seed of doubt will be left in the minds of the universe as to the fact it was a "loving" act. So this is why we have to be careful. When we say that God does not have the right to destroy, we are presenting one of satans arguments. We are presenting error of the very worst kind.

I'm not saying God doesn't have the right to destroy, but that the means of destruction are truth and love, not force and violence.

Quote:

We are also undermining a foundational position of the SDA church.

I'm hoping Kevin H. will step in here, as I believe he's studied this issue in some detail. I think history is on my side of this question. At least, I can name several pioneers who saw things I've been presenting them, and don't know of any who see them the way your are.

Quote:

We really have to be careful with this one. It is a false teaching.

We both agree on this point, but disagree as to what the false teaching is. I believe the false teaching is that God will use force and violence to destroy sin and sinners. I believe He will use truth and love to do so. It seems you view this idea as a false teaching.

I think pnat, you are asking me questions that you need to ask of your own position...

You have taken the questions I have asked you and tried to turn them back this way:

If it destroys, why can't God just let it destroy? Surely He could prevent it from contaminating others while it was destroying those who sin.

Think about what you have asked here, in light of our understanding of the Great Controversy?

Mark