Sin destroy's itself...

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

How long should it take for a Seventh-day Adventist who professes to believe in the SoP to believe just what the prophet says she was shown by the Lord:

"I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection." MR 14,3.1

How long should it take for us to believe that? How long should it take to understand that a statement like that is a strong hint from the Lord as to how we are to read the Bible when God says that He did this or that He did that or that He will do this or that He will do that when it comes to His judgments?

"It is dangerous to utter a word of doubt, dangerous to question and criticize divine light." D.A.323.

sky

But we need the whole context Sky...

Let us consider the words in "context":

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

I was shown that the time was in the near future that these whom God had warned and reproved and given great light but they would not correct their ways and follow the light, He would remove from them that heavenly protection which had preserved them from Satan's cruel power; the Lord would surely leave them to themselves to follow the judgment and counsels of their own wisdom; they would be simply left to themselves, and the protection of God be withdrawn from them, and they would not be shielded from the workings of Satan; that none of finite judgment and foresight can have any power to conceive of the care God has exercised through His angels over the children of men in their travels, in their own houses, in their eating and drinking. Wherever they are, His eye is upon them. They are preserved from a thousand dangers, all to them unseen. Satan has laid snares, but the Lord is constantly at work to save His people from them. {14MR 2.3}

But [from] those who have no sense of the goodness and mercy of God, [those] who refuse His merciful warnings, who reject His counsels to reach

the highest standard of Bible requirements, who do despite to the Spirit of grace, the Lord would remove His protecting power. I was shown that Satan would entangle and then destroy, if he could, the souls he had tempted. God will bear long, but there is a bound to His mercy, a line which marks His mercy and His justice. {14MR 2.4}

I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan's decided attacks upon them.

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

This quote is dealing with a specific group of people at a specific time.

It is dealing with the Advent people.

It is dealing with what will happen before Jesus comes.

So yes, I accept the words of the Prophet.

I just cannot accept an out of context interpretation of those quotes.

If we cannot even use a quote in context, how are we going to understand anything in the SOP?

Mark

[Guest]

Jesus is about to leave the mercy seat of the heavenly sanctuary, to put on garments of vengeance, and pour out His wrath in judgments upon those who have not responded to the light God has given them.....

...But there are limits even to the forbearance of God, and many are exceeding these boundaries. They have overrun the limits of grace, and therefore God must interfere and vindicate His honor. {CET 185}

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

God can destroy without having to directly cause things to happen Himself. That's the point.

How?

Either God destroys or He does not.

Please explain this statement. :-)

Mark

God is often presented in inspiration as doing that which he permits. For example, God killed Saul. Did He directly cause this to happen, or did He permit it? There are many examples of this. He sent lying spirits to Ahab, He sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, He will send strong delusion in the future upon unbelievers, He raised up evil in the house of David. For all of these, one could say: "Either God killed Saul, or He didn't." "Either God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, or He didn't" etc.

Yet in all of these inspiration says that God did it, when what actually happened is God permitted the given thing to occur. God is sovereign, and He is humble, so it is in harmony with His character that He would accept responsibility for that which He did not cause. "I restored that which I stole not."

[Guest]

These confederacies will continue until Christ shall leave His place of intercession before the mercy seat and shall put on the garments of vengeance. {CCh 341}

It looks like there is more than just one role to me. I can see how someone who refuses to look at the whole picture could think there was only one role. But obviously that is not true.

[Guest]

.....and that the wrath of God could not come until Jesus had finished His work in the most holy place, laid off His priestly attire, and clothed Himself with the garments of vengeance. Then Jesus will step out from between the Father and man, and God will keep silence no longer, but pour out His wrath on those who have rejected His truth. {EW 36}

This does not sound like a passive role to me, and should be considered. Instead of using one set of quotes to disprove another set of quotes.

[Woody]

Quote:

So when a brother insists on error, it may take years for the Lord to reach through that darkness.

That does not mean we write them off, or assume the very worst of them.

I did this in the past to you Redwood.

I do not agree with what you believe, but that does not mean I should write you off.

For that I apologise.

We should never write another off, because we never know what error we hold that is hidden to us. :-)

Mark

Hey Mark. Pretty amazing that you would gain the insight to recognize what you have done in the past. And even more blessed that you are willing to apologize for it. Much appreciated. I like the insight that you have gained.

Thanks. And blessings ...

[Guest]

Mark is on a path that leads upward.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Where is the EGW quote that says we are to change the language of the Bible? Or that the language of the Bible is wrong?

The only ones I have ever seen, are the ones you have supplied that warn us not to do this Richard...

God killed Saul. God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. But He didn't; He permitted these things. Is that "changing the language of the Bible?"

[Guest]

When you start applying it to the whole Bible, and things it does not apply to, YES! You can't read the whole Bible based on the context of one text. That would be foolish.

[Guest]

When Jesus rises up in the most holy place, and lays off His mediatorial garments, and clothes Himself with the garments of vengeance in place of the priestly attire, the work for sinners will be done. . . . The probation of all closes when the pleading for sinners is ended and the garments of vengeance are put on. {FLB 215}

[Guest]

God comes to man in one role only, which is as a Saviour.

Today the voice of mercy is calling, and Jesus is drawing men by the cords of His love; but the day will come when Jesus will put on the garments of vengeance. . . . The wickedness of the world is increasing every day, and when a certain line is reached, the register will be closed, and the account settled. {MAR 55}

When Jesus rises up in the most holy place, lays off His mediatorial robes, and clothes Himself with the garments of vengeance, the mandate will go forth: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: . . . and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with me" (Revelation 22:11, 12).--Testimonies, vol. 8, pp. 313-315.

.....and that the wrath of God could not come until Jesus had finished His work in the most holy place, laid off His priestly attire, and clothed Himself with the garments of vengeance. Then Jesus will step out from between the Father and man, and God will keep silence no longer, but pour out His wrath on those who have rejected His truth. {EW 36}

Looks like the role does change after all sky, yes?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

But we need the whole context Sky...

Let us consider the words in "context":

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

I was shown that the time was in the near future that these whom God had warned and reproved and given great light but they would not correct their ways and follow the light, He would remove from them that heavenly protection which had preserved them from Satan's cruel power; the Lord would surely leave them to themselves to follow the judgment and counsels of their own wisdom; they would be simply left to themselves, and the protection of God be withdrawn from them, and they would not be shielded from the workings of Satan; that none of finite judgment and foresight can have any power to conceive of the care God has exercised through His angels over the children of men in their travels, in their own houses, in their eating and drinking. Wherever they are, His eye is upon them. They are preserved from a thousand dangers, all to them unseen. Satan has laid snares, but the Lord is constantly at work to save His people from them. {14MR 2.3}

But [from'] those who have no sense of the goodness and mercy of God, [those] who refuse His merciful warnings, who reject His counsels to reach

the highest standard of Bible requirements, who do despite to the Spirit of grace, the Lord would remove His protecting power. I was shown that Satan would entangle and then destroy, if he could, the souls he had tempted. God will bear long, but there is a bound to His mercy, a line which marks His mercy and His justice. {14MR 2.4}

I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan's decided attacks upon them.

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

This quote is dealing with a specific group of people at a specific time.

It is dealing with the Advent people.

It is dealing with what will happen before Jesus comes.

So yes, I accept the words of the Prophet.

I just cannot accept an out of context interpretation of those quotes.

If we cannot even use a quote in context, how are we going to understand anything in the SOP?

Mark

I don't understand why you would think this application should be limited.

Because it addresses a specific group of people in its context.

So to take it beyond that group of people is applying it beyond its original usage.

Do you think we should do that pnat?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

How?

Either God destroys or He does not.

Please explain this statement. :-)

Mark

God is often presented in inspiration as doing that which he permits. For example' date=' God killed Saul. Did He directly cause this to happen, or did He permit it? There are many examples of this. He sent lying spirits to Ahab, He sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, He will send strong delusion in the future upon unbelievers, He raised up evil in the house of David. For all of these, one could say: "Either God killed Saul, or He didn't." "Either God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, or He didn't" etc.

Yet in all of these inspiration says that God did it, when what actually happened is God permitted the given thing to occur. God is sovereign, and He is humble, so it is in harmony with His character that He would accept responsibility for that which He did not cause. "I restored that which I stole not." [/quote']

Have you not read any of the statements that show that this is not the only principle that is to be taken into consideration?

Do you filter all statements so that only this principle is left?

I would ask you to ask the Lord to open up your mind to the plain truths of this simple statement:

The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere.--GC 614 (1911). {LDE 243.4}

[Twilight]

.....and that the wrath of God could not come until Jesus had finished His work in the most holy place, laid off His priestly attire, and clothed Himself with the garments of vengeance. Then Jesus will step out from between the Father and man, and God will keep silence no longer, but pour out His wrath on those who have rejected His truth. {EW 36}

This does not sound like a passive role to me, and should be considered. Instead of using one set of quotes to disprove another set of quotes.

Interesting quote Richard.

Doesn't sound like a pacifist to me?

[Twilight]

Quote:

So when a brother insists on error, it may take years for the Lord to reach through that darkness.

That does not mean we write them off, or assume the very worst of them.

I did this in the past to you Redwood.

I do not agree with what you believe, but that does not mean I should write you off.

For that I apologise.

We should never write another off, because we never know what error we hold that is hidden to us. :-)

Mark

Hey Mark. Pretty amazing that you would gain the insight to recognize what you have done in the past. And even more blessed that you are willing to apologize for it. Much appreciated. I like the insight that you have gained.

Thanks. And blessings ...

You are welcome Redwood. :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Re: #284219, thanks, Sky, for posting that. I was hoping you would. That explains the principle very well, I think. I especially liked this paragraph:

Quote:

To harden is to destroy. It is not physical destruction but spiritual. This spiritual destruction is the prelude to the physical which must inevitably follow. The Scriptures plainly say that it was God who did it and He did, but every reference which throws light on what God did, shows that His action was to send spiritual light, and loving appeals to Pharaoh. These were designed to soften and save, not to harden him, but that which was sent to save, destroyed him instead, because he rejected it. Note carefully that it was not the light, but his rejection of it that hardened and destroyed him.

I think the second sentence is often not understood. "It is not physical destruction but spiritual."

The principles discussed here apply to the judgment. The same sun which melts the ice hardens the clay. The sun is the same, but the effect is different. So God's love will either melt our hearts or harden them, to our salvation or destruction.

[Twilight]

Mark is on a path that leads upward.

Mark is on a path that the Lord has to keep placing him back onto, because it seems the slightest influence and Mark has wandered off again into the forest at the side of the road...

My failures are many, but the Lord's Grace is wonderful.

If He did not keep me, I would not be here.

Credit where credit is due. :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The only ones I have ever seen' date=' are the ones you have supplied that warn us not to do this Richard... [/quote']

God killed Saul. God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. But He didn't; He permitted these things. Is that "changing the language of the Bible?"

True.

But God also ordered Saul to kill a whole nation of people and was angry when Saul did not do that.

So is that another principle that does not fit with the above, or is it something we should gloss over and spiritualise away?

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Have you not read any of the statements that show that this is not the only principle that is to be taken into consideration?

I've written quite a lot regarding this. You're expressing the idea that we should interpret based on a principle like this:

"If inspiration says God did something violent, we should understand that He did, unless somewhere else it tells us that He didn't."

I don't think that's a very good approach. I think a better one is to apply the principles we learn from certain events and apply them to other similar ones.

Regarding the GC 614 sentences that you quote, why not consider the context? Here's the context:

Quote:

When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.

This is what is written immediately preceding what you quoted. This makes it clear that the the forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere, are not holy angels but unholy ones. When the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn, and the angels of God cease to hold back the winds of strife, there is no protection from whom? Holy angels? No; from Satan.

[Twilight]

Re: #284219, thanks, Sky, for posting that. I was hoping you would. That explains the principle very well, I think. I especially liked this paragraph:

Quote:

To harden is to destroy. It is not physical destruction but spiritual. This spiritual destruction is the prelude to the physical which must inevitably follow. The Scriptures plainly say that it was God who did it and He did, but every reference which throws light on what God did, shows that His action was to send spiritual light, and loving appeals to Pharaoh. These were designed to soften and save, not to harden him, but that which was sent to save, destroyed him instead, because he rejected it. Note carefully that it was not the light, but his rejection of it that hardened and destroyed him.

I think the second sentence is often not understood. "It is not physical destruction but spiritual."

The principles discussed here apply to the judgment.

What do you mean by this statement Pnatt?

The principles discussed here apply to the judgment.

Mark :-)

[Guest]

This makes it clear that the the forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere, are not holy angels but unholy ones.

It will not be evil angels who destroy themselves, and Satan. Or even the wicked for that matter.

Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. {EW 294}

[Lutz13]

.....and that the wrath of God could not come until Jesus had finished His work in the most holy place, laid off His priestly attire, and clothed Himself with the garments of vengeance. Then Jesus will step out from between the Father and man, and God will keep silence no longer, but pour out His wrath on those who have rejected His truth. {EW 36}

This does not sound like a passive role to me, and should be considered. Instead of using one set of quotes to disprove another set of quotes.

Yet you still ignore the parts where God says: "For I am the Lord, I do not change"(Malachi 3:6) "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."(Hebrews 13:8)

The nature of Gods wrath does not change. It is a trait that belongs to His character. So when Paul explains what the wrath of God is, how can we still go on and assume it is God being angry and blowing people up?

How is "God gave them up....God gave them up....God gave them over" not clear? How is "I gave you a king in My anger, and took him away in My wrath"(Hosea 13:11) not a clear picture of Gods wrath?

When God said that He would harden Pharaohs heart, did He do it? Scripture makes it clear that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Yet God "gave him over" to his hearts desires. Pharaoh also suffered the wrath of God.

When God said: "Thus says the Lord: 'Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun."(2 Samuel 12:11)

When Jesus said: "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'"(Matthew 26:31) We know that God isn't the one who killed Jesus.

I have read many many many instances of this in scripture. So when I also read:

"You defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your trading; therefore I brought fire from your midst; it devoured you, and I turned you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all who saw you."(Ezekiel 28:18) I understand it just like the many other times God says "I will".

When I read "Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, 'Go and pour out the bowls of the wrath of God on the earth.'"(Revelation 16:1) I completely understand that it isn't God doing it, but allowing consequence to overtake the inhabitants of the earth. Clearly I read "Because they hated my knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord, they would have none of my counsel and despised my every rebuke. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled to the full with their own fancies."(Proverbs 1:29-31) They reap what they have sown into their own hearts.

So when you say the wrath of God changes. You call God a liar. He said I change not! His character and nature are the same forever. His wrath is a trait of character.

[Guest]

Did you watch the video?

[skyblue888]

Re: #284219, thanks, Sky, for posting that. I was hoping you would. That explains the principle very well, I think. I especially liked this paragraph:

Quote:

To harden is to destroy. It is not physical destruction but spiritual. This spiritual destruction is the prelude to the physical which must inevitably follow. The Scriptures plainly say that it was God who did it and He did, but every reference which throws light on what God did, shows that His action was to send spiritual light, and loving appeals to Pharaoh. These were designed to soften and save, not to harden him, but that which was sent to save, destroyed him instead, because he rejected it. Note carefully that it was not the light, but his rejection of it that hardened and destroyed him.

I think the second sentence is often not understood. "It is not physical destruction but spiritual."

The principles discussed here apply to the judgment. The same sun which melts the ice hardens the clay. The sun is the same, but the effect is different. So God's love will either melt our hearts or harden them, to our salvation or destruction.

Amen!

[skyblue888]

Quote:

Have you not read any of the statements that show that this is not the only principle that is to be taken into consideration?

I've written quite a lot regarding this. You're expressing the idea that we should interpret based on a principle like this:

"If inspiration says God did something violent, we should understand that He did, unless somewhere else it tells us that He didn't."

I don't think that's a very good approach. I think a better one is to apply the principles we learn from certain events and apply them to other similar ones.

Regarding the GC 614 sentences that you quote, why not consider the context? Here's the context:

Quote:

When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.

This is what is written immediately preceding what you quoted. This makes it clear that the the forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere, are not holy angels but unholy ones. When the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn, and the angels of God cease to hold back the winds of strife, there is no protection from whom? Holy angels? No; from Satan.

Amen!