"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Robert]

Quote:

Robert: ... as long as we are on this "God's will" thing, let's look at a verse found in the OT:

Then the LORD said to him [Moses], "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?

Is it God's will for infants to be born blind?

No, not His active will, certainly not.

Then why does He state that He causes such?

[John317]

John317: Let me ask you, do you read very much in systematic theology? If so, you might look into some systematic theologies regarding God's decrees and foreknowledge, etc., and the freedom of the will.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: their are only two systematic theologies which I am aware of that are logically consistent regarding this point. One is Calvinism...

OK. I see the problem here. The answer to my question is that you evidently have no idea what systematic theology is. At least your answer here would tend to indicate this.

If you Google, "Systematic Theology," and check out a few of the links, you'll get an idea of what "systematic theology" is. Systematic theology involves collecting, and understanding, all the relevant passsages in the Bible on various topics and then summarizing their teachings so that we know what to believe about each topic.

One such systematic theology, titled, The Reign of God, was written by Richard Rice, a Seventh-day Adventist associate professor of theology at Loma Linda University. The book, Seventh-day Adventists Beleive, is another example of a systematic theology. Some of the better known systematic theologies are those of Augustus Strong (Baptist), Karl Barth, Louis Berkhof (Reformed), and Wayne Grudem (Reformed). There are literally hunreds of others, many of which are equally well known and regarded as the ones given here.

The reason I asked the question about systematic theology is that if you studied the subjects in various systemtic theologies, you would have a pretty good understanding of what Christianity teaches concerning God's foreknowledge, His Providence, human freedom, the person of Christ, the Judgment, and the final destruction of the wicked. Systematic theologies include discussions of the questions you are asking about regarding the relationship between God's foreknowledge and Providence, and human freedom, etc. They examine the different arguments and viewpoints of Calvinists versus Arminians, for instance.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: While most theologians do not agree with the perspective I'm sharing, many Christian philosophers do (I'm speaking of philosophy as a disciple, which uses rules of logic to make their arguments), and my understanding is that it's actually the majority position. Of course, there's no truth in numbers (or else we wouldn't be SDA's; we'd be Catholics), but it's simply an indication that there are many who see the logic in the points I'm bringing out here.

Which Christian philosophers take your position? Can you tell some of their books on this subject that you've read?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: All we know is what the Bible and SOP tell us about these matters, which is that God knows the end from the beginning, but that, as said before, God took a real risk in sending the pre-incarnate Christ to come to this world as a man. I assert that it was "imperiled" simply on the testimony of the prophet of God, in whom I have complete confidence as the messenger of God.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This looks like the Lutheran position. You appear to be recognizing that your position is logically impossible, but you're going to assert it anyway, because this is what you believe is Scriptural. I don't believe it's necessary for us to have a position which is logically impossible.

No, I'm not a Lutheran. I'm a Seventh-day Adventist. I accept all of the Bible and believe that Ellen White was a genuine prophet of God. So if you read what Ellen White teaches on the subject, you'll see exactly what I believe. What I believe is also found generally in books written by well-known Seventh-day Adventist writers, although there are some differences in the details among these writers, particularly on some doctrines such as the Trinity, Armageddon, the nature of Christ's humanity, etc. This is especially true the further back in Adventist history you go.

Ellen White taught that God knows the end from the beginning, yet she also taught that God took a real risk in sending His Son here as a human being to be tempted by Satan. Her writings contain such statements as, "From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostatte. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency" DA 22. The same writer often said that God had shown her "coming events," and "the scenes of the past AND THE FUTURE" (GC, Introduction, p. 14). Ellen G. White was sometimes given visions which showed exactly what people would say and do before those things actually happened.

The prophecies as found in Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, 11; Ezekiel 26: 3-5 --- as well as many other prophecies, such as those regarding Cyrus, Christ, Judas, including the entire book of Revelation,-- prove beyond question that God knows the future. I have no doubt that God foresaw and planned the rise of the Millerite movement and the Seventh-day Adventist church. I believe He also knew in eternity past that you and I would exist, just as Scripture proves that He knew long before they were born that Cyrus and Paul would exist and what they would do. If He didn't, the Bible could not contain statements such as the ones found in Is. 44: 28; 45: 1; Gal. 1: 15; Eph. 1: 4, 5; Is. 41: 22, 23, 26; 48: 3, 5.

Just two examples from representative Adventist viewpoints:

"Some believe that God relates to persons without knowing their choics until they are made-- that God knows certain future events such as the Second Coming, the millennium, and the restoration of the earth but has no idea who will be saved. They feel that God's dynmaic relationship with the human race would be in jeopardy if He knew everything that would transpire from eternity to eternity. Some suggest that he would be bored if He knew the end from the beginning.

"But God's knowledge about what individuals will do does not interfere with what they actually choose to do any more than a historian's knowledge of what people did in the past interferes with their actions. Just as a camera records a scene but does not change it, foreknowledge looks into the future without altering it. The foreknowledge of the Godhead never violates human freedom." Seventh-day Adventists Beleive, pp. 28, 29.

In his book, The Reign of God, pp. 80-88, Richard Rice discusses questions of prophecy as related to God's Providence and to "conditional prophecy."

But these issues, while highly interesting and very important, are getting beyond and apart from the main question we're discussing on this thread.

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: You believe that that fire will come directly from our good and gracious Lord upon the wicked to devour them all because you read these words, "And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them," (Rev.19:9) and yet you do not believe the next verse which plainly says that "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Rev.19:10)

I believe that verse in the literal sense in which it is stated, which, in the literal Greek, means that they will suffer day and night until they pass out of existence. The expression "forever and ever" means literally, "unto time indefinite," or "unto the ages of the ages." An "age" is simply an indeterminate amount of time, defined by its subject. In this case, referring to beings subject to death, it means they will suffer until they cease to exist. See the SDA BC on Rev. 20: 10.

As you know, Ellen White says that many will suffer for days, and Satan will suffer many days after the others have ceased to exist.

Here is Ellen White's comment:

"Those who do not choose to accept of the salvation so dearly purchased, must be punished. But I saw that God would not shut them up in hell to endure endless misery, neither will He take them to heaven; for to bring them into the company of the pure and holy would make them exceedingly miserable. But He will destroy them utterly and CAUSE them to be as if they had not been; THEN HIS JUSTICE WILL BE SATISFIED. He formed man out of the dust of the earth, and the disobedient and unholy will be consumed by fire and return to the dust again. I saw that the benevolence and compassion of God in this matter should lead all to admire His character and to adore His holy name. After the wicked are destroyed from off the earth, all the heavenly host will say, 'Amen!.'" EW 221

Quote:

sky: You and I understand that the wicked will not be burning in that fire day and night forever and ever, but that they will be like ashes under the feet of the redeemed but even that is a figure of speech because the earth will be made new and there won't be any ashes remaining.

Yes, we both agree on this. The problem with the phrase, "forever and ever," is that it means something different to English speakers than the Greek phrase meant to the apostle John.

Quote:

What makes you think that we should take verse 9 literally but not verse 10? make it your best case!

OK. See above. :-)

By the way, as you know, the beast and the false prophet are symbols representing people in false religious systems/organizations which will be destroyed at that time by the fires that fall from God out of heaven.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:I believe it's a universal principle to the extent that Ellen White intended the statement to be understood, which is that God will never use compelling force to win the great controversy or to gain the service and loyalty of his intelligent creatures. God never forces people to accept Him.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Regarding God's not using force to win the Great Controversy, if force, compelling power, violence and torture are things God does, then these form a part of His character and are principles of His government. It's self-contradictory to assert that *anything* that God does is not being done to win the Great Controversy because God wins the Great Controversy precisely by making known what He does!

How does Ellen White say God won the great controversy?

She says that God won it through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. It is simply untrue to say that God wins the great controversy through each individual act of God throughout all history.

For instance:

1) Did God win the great controversy by forcing the devil and the evil angels out of heaven?

2) Did God win the great controversy by forcing Adam out of the Garden?

3) Did God do it by destroying the world in a flood?

4) Did God win it by destroying Sodom?

5) Did God win it by bringing the plagues on Egypt?

To each of those questions, the obvious answer is NO.

How then did God win the great controversy? Through the life and death of Jesus Christ. Satan's character was shown for what it is, and God's character was also demonstrated clearly for all the universe to witness. In this there was no use of force. God does not force anyone to accept Him or to reject Satan.

[Robert]

You have a very militaristic view of God. I think that is unhealthy, John.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: No, [God does not will that all people die], certainly not. Most of the time He chooses to allow the consequences of sin in the world to follow their natural course. When He interferes and breaks that "natural course," we call it a miracle. If He didn't usually allow people to reap the natural consequences of sin, humans wouldn't learn that sin is a great evil which results in very harmful consequences.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: ... if we suppose that God intervenes and causes some terrible thing to happen which is NOT the natural consequence of sin, then humans wouldn't learn that sin is a great evil which results in very harmful consequences. They would simply learn that sin is something God doesn't like, and you better not make God angry by doing things He doesn't like.

Do you beleive the following things were natural consequences of sin, and that there was nothing supernatural about them:

1. The Flood

2) The confusion of the languages at the tower of Babel

3) The destruction of Sodom

4) The Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, including the destruction of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea

Wouldn't you agree that it's important for mankind to learn that God is holy, hates sin and will one day destroy sinners?

[Robert]

Ellen White says that many will suffer for days, and Satan will suffer many days after the others have ceased to exist.

If I speed I'll get a ticket. That takes money from my wallet...that hurts. The idea is that this suffering will get me to rethink if I should break the speed limit. In other words suffering motivates possible change.

This isn't true when it comes to the lost. Suffering for their sins doesn't bring a change. It has no value...it does nothing. Therefore it's torture and God isn't a sadist, right John?

The Bible, not EGW, states that "the wages of sin is death". Nothing about torture....

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: You have a very militaristic view of God. I think that is unhealthy, John.

OK, that's an opinion, really a conclusion. What in particular do you find "militaristic"?

Where does my view contradict that of the Bible and/or Ellen White? Show your evidence.

[Robert]

Do you beleive the following things were natural consequences of sin, and that there was nothing supernatural about them:

1. The Flood

[Robert]

Quote:

Robert: You have a very militaristic view of God. I think that is unhealthy, John.

OK, that's an opinion, really a conclusion. But show your evidence.

Look at your posts....

[Guest]

Quote:

Yes natural....God supernaturally kept it from happening because sin causes decay in the earth and everything it touches.

Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the Flood to the operation of natural causes. {PP 119}

Infidel

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: You have a very militaristic view of God. I think that is unhealthy, John.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: OK, that's an opinion, really a conclusion. But show your evidence.

Quote:

ROBERT: Look at your posts....

I'm sure you can be more specific than that.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Do you beleive the following things were natural consequences of sin, and that there was nothing supernatural about them:

1. The Flood

Quote:

ROBERT: Yes natural....God supernaturally kept it from happening because sin causes decay in the earth and everything it touches.

Could you show the Bible verses that states this? And explain what you mean by "natural"? In what way was it "natural"? Did God change the natural processes in order to bring about the Flood? What evidence is there that sin "naturally" caused the water to come out of the earth and to come down from the sky as it did?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 2) The confusion of the languages at the tower of Babel

Quote:

ROBERT: God did this....

I agree with you. God did it. He entered into human history at that point.

And that was not an example of the use of force? Didn't God make them stop working on the tower and disperse?

Quote:

3) The destruction of Sodom

Quote:

ROBERT: Natural....God supernaturally kept it from happening until Sodom universally rejected Him. Then He released.

Is that based on the theory that it was caused by a volcano?

I suppose it's OK as long as we acknowledge that it's an unproven and even unsupported theory, without any biblical or SOP evidence.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

John317: Let me ask you, do you read very much in systematic theology? If so, you might look into some systematic theologies regarding God's decrees and foreknowledge, etc., and the freedom of the will.

pnattmbtc: their are only two systematic theologies which I am aware of that are logically consistent regarding this point. One is Calvinism...

John317:OK. I see the problem here. The answer to my question is that you evidently have no idea what systematic theology is. At least your answer here would tend to indicate this.

Why? Calvin didn't develop a systematic theology? I majored in theology. I completed the coursework for an MDiv at the seminary. Have you done this?

Quote:

If you Google, "Systematic Theology," and check out a few of the links, you'll get an idea of what "systematic theology" is. Systematic theology involves collecting, and understanding, all the relevant passsages in the Bible on various topics and then summarizing their teachings so that we know what to believe about each topic.

One such systematic theology, titled, The Reign of God, was written by Richard Rice, a Seventh-day Adventist associate professor of theology at Loma Linda University. The book, Seventh-day Adventists Beleive, is another example of a systematic theology. Some of the better known systematic theologies are those of Augustus Strong (Baptist), Karl Barth, Louis Berkhof (Reformed), and Wayne Grudem (Reformed). There are literally hunreds of others, many of which are equally well known and regarded as the ones given here.

The reason I asked the question about systematic theology is that if you studied the subjects in various systemtic theologies, you would have a pretty good understanding of what Christianity teaches concerning God's foreknowledge, His Providence, human freedom, the person of Christ, the Judgment, and the final destruction of the wicked. Systematic theologies include discussions of the questions you are asking about regarding the relationship between God's foreknowledge and Providence, and human freedom, etc. They examine the different arguments and viewpoints of Calvinists versus Arminians, for instance.

pnattmbtc: While most theologians do not agree with the perspective I'm sharing, many Christian philosophers do (I'm speaking of philosophy as a disciple, which uses rules of logic to make their arguments), and my understanding is that it's actually the majority position. Of course, there's no truth in numbers (or else we wouldn't be SDA's; we'd be Catholics), but it's simply an indication that there are many who see the logic in the points I'm bringing out here.

Which Christian philosophers take your position? Can you tell some of their books on this subject that you've read?

"God, Time and Knowledge" by William Hasker.

Another book I've read which goes into this, although the author is not a Christian philosopher, like Hasker is (but he does discuss quite a number of philosophical arguments) is "Satan and the Problem of Evil" by Greg Boyd.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: All we know is what the Bible and SOP tell us about these matters, which is that God knows the end from the beginning, but that, as said before, God took a real risk in sending the pre-incarnate Christ to come to this world as a man. I assert that it was "imperiled" simply on the testimony of the prophet of God, in whom I have complete confidence as the messenger of God.

pnattmbtc: This looks like the Lutheran position. You appear to be recognizing that your position is logically impossible, but you're going to assert it anyway, because this is what you believe is Scriptural. I don't believe it's necessary for us to have a position which is logically impossible.

No, I'm not a Lutheran. I'm a Seventh-day Adventist.

I didn't say you were Lutheran, but your position appears to be similar to the Lutherans in that they assert that there position is Scriptural, although they recognize it may not be logical.

Quote:

I accept all of the Bible and believe that Ellen White was a genuine prophet of God.

I know you claim to, and believe you do. I've not suggested otherwise, have I?

Quote:

So if you read what Ellen White teaches on the subject, you'll see exactly what I believe.

No, this wouldn't follow, unless you were perfect/infallible. I can infer your position by what you write, however. I'm sure you believe all your positions agree with Ellen White and the Bible, but believing something is the truth doesn't make it the truth.

Quote:

What I believe is also found generally in books written by well-known Seventh-day Adventist writers, although there are some differences in the details among these writers, particularly on some doctrines such as the Trinity, Armageddon, the nature of Christ's humanity, etc.

This doesn't make it true either. In the discussions we've had on other subjects, my positions agree more closely to Jones and Waggoner's than yours do, IMO. Do you dispute this? I mention this because the SOP specifically endorsed them several thousand times.

Quote:

This is especially true the further back in Adventist history you go.

Ellen White taught that God knows the end from the beginning, yet she also taught that God took a real risk in sending His Son here as a human being to be tempted by Satan. Her writings contain such statements as, "From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostatte. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency" DA 22. The same writer often said that God had shown her "coming events," and "the scenes of the past AND THE FUTURE" (GC, Introduction, p. 14). Ellen G. White was sometimes given visions which showed exactly what people would say and do before those things actually happened.

God could easily show coming events without the future being fixed. Do you disagree?

Quote:

The prophecies as found in Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, 11; Ezekiel 26: 3-5 --- as well as many other prophecies, such as those regarding Cyrus, Christ, Judas, including the entire book of Revelation,-- prove beyond question that God knows the future.

I've explained several times that our difference is ontological, not epistemological. Do you not understand this point? I ask this because you continue to present things in epistemological terms. I've explained to you on many occasions now, every time we've discussed this, that I believe God knows the future perfectly. Yet you continue to assert that God knows the future, as if this were a meaningful assertion. Again, I've already said I believe God knows the future perfectly, and I've already explained to you that this is a tenet of Open Theism. If you studied with Dr. Rice, you should know this. Why are you asserting that God knows the future? (of course this is true, but why do you think there's a need to assert this, given that this is a tenet of Open Theism, and I've already explained that I believe this, and that our difference is ontological, not epistemological).

Quote:

I have no doubt that God foresaw and planned the rise of the Millerite movement and the Seventh-day Adventist church. I believe He also knew in eternity past that you and I would exist, just as Scripture proves that He knew long before they were born that Cyrus and Paul would exist and what they would do. If He didn't, the Bible could not contain statements such as the ones found in Is. 44: 28; 45: 1; Gal. 1: 15; Eph. 1: 4, 5; Is. 41: 22, 23, 26; 48: 3, 5.

Just two examples from representative Adventist viewpoints:

"Some believe that God relates to persons without knowing their choics until they are made-- that God knows certain future events such as the Second Coming, the millennium, and the restoration of the earth but has no idea who will be saved. They feel that God's dynmaic relationship with the human race would be in jeopardy if He knew everything that would transpire from eternity to eternity. Some suggest that he would be bored if He knew the end from the beginning.

"But God's knowledge about what individuals will do does not interfere with what they actually choose to do any more than a historian's knowledge of what people did in the past interferes with their actions. Just as a camera records a scene but does not change it, foreknowledge looks into the future without altering it. The foreknowledge of the Godhead never violates human freedom." Seventh-day Adventists Beleive, pp. 28, 29.

In his book, The Reign of God, pp. 80-88, Richard Rice discusses questions of prophecy as related to God's Providence and to "conditional prophecy."

But these issues, while highly interesting and very important, are getting beyond and apart from the main question we're discussing on this thread.

You're not dealing with the issues or questions I've brought up.

If God knows with certainty that a thing will happen, isn't it certain that thing will happen? Let's start with this. Do you agree?

[pnattmbtc]

pnattmbtc: Regarding God's not using force to win the Great Controversy, if force, compelling power, violence and torture are things God does, then these form a part of His character and are principles of His government. It's self-contradictory to assert that *anything* that God does is not being done to win the Great Controversy because God wins the Great Controversy precisely by making known what He does!

J:How does Ellen White say God won the great controversy?

[pnattmbtc]

John317, a question I've been trying to ask is, given that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits, how do you know if God actually did the thing or not. You responded something like "Simple. On the basis of what inspiration says."

But inspiration says that:

1.God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites.

2.God moved David to number Israel.

3.God sent armies to destroy Jerusalem.

And many more. But I'll stop with these three.

God didn't directly do any of these things. How would you ascertain that God didn't do these things, given that inspiration says He did?

[pnattmbtc]

Could you show the Bible verses that states this? And explain what you mean by "natural"? In what way was it "natural"? Did God change the natural processes in order to bring about the Flood? What evidence is there that sin "naturally" caused the water to come out of the earth and to come down from the sky as it did?

Sky posted pages and pages on this. Did you not read them? His posts included the relevant Biblical passages.

[pnattmbtc]

4) The Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, including the destruction of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea

Tough one...

I don't think so. God miraculously parted the Red Sea. The Egyptians arrogantly followed behind the Israelites, with the intention of killing them. God was under no moral obligation to miraculously part the Red Sea so the Egyptians could kill the Israelites. God ceased parting the Red Sea, and it returned to its natural state.

God didn't pick up the Red Sea and hurl it at the Egyptians. He simply ceased the miracle He was performing.

What do you think?

[pnattmbtc]

John317: No, [God does not will that all people die], certainly not. Most of the time He chooses to allow the consequences of sin in the world to follow their natural course. When He interferes and breaks that "natural course," we call it a miracle. If He didn't usually allow people to reap the natural consequences of sin, humans wouldn't learn that sin is a great evil which results in very harmful consequences.

pnattmbtc: ... if we suppose that God intervenes and causes some terrible thing to happen which is NOT the natural consequence of sin, then humans wouldn't learn that sin is a great evil which results in very harmful consequences. They would simply learn that sin is something God doesn't like, and you better not make God angry by doing things He doesn't like.

J:Do you beleive the following things were natural consequences of sin, and that there was nothing supernatural about them:

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Let me ask you, do you read very much in systematic theology? If so, you might look into some systematic theologies regarding God's decrees and foreknowledge, etc., and the freedom of the will.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: their are only two systematic theologies which I am aware of that are logically consistent regarding this point. One is Calvinism...

Quote:

John317: OK. I see the problem here. The answer to my question is that you evidently have no idea what systematic theology is. At least your answer here would tend to indicate this.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Why? Calvin didn't develop a systematic theology? I majored in theology...

What I'm wondering about is why, when I asked you if you read read much in systematic theology, you said that you are aware of only two systematic theologies on this point, one being Calvinism...

You must realize that while John Calvin did write a systematic theology, Institutes of the Christian Religion, "Calvinism" itself is hardly a systematic theology. So I am just wondering why you appeared to be confused by the mention of systematic theology, and said you only knew of two, even after I gave examples of what I was talking about. Your answer gave me the impression that you must not be very well acquainted with systematic theology. It's not the answer one would expect from an M. Div.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Wouldn't you agree that it's important for mankind to learn that God is holy, hates sin and will one day destroy sinners?

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

Yes, of course this is important, but mankind can't learn that sin is evil if the evil that comes as a result of sin is of God's own hand.

There are sins, however, which do not appear to be evil in and of themselves. For instance, homosexuality. The only reason we know that God hates the practice of homosexuality is that Inspiration tells us so.

Outside the fact that the Bible says it is wrong and that people who practice it won't be saved in God's kingdom, could you tell me what is morally wrong with it?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Going back to the post you are responding to, you didn't address my point. Please make some comment about my point.

Here's my point:

If we suppose that God intervenes and causes some terrible thing to happen which is NOT the natural consequence of sin, then humans wouldn't learn that sin is a great evil which results in very harmful consequences.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

No, I don't agree that this applies in all circumstances and in regard to all sins.

The only real reason something is sinful is that it is contrary to God's character and His law. Something is sinful NOT because we see the harmful consequences but simply on the basis of God's commandments. Sin is whatever is out of harmony with God's character and does not conform to the will of God. Take the commandment of God that Adam and Eve should not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was right for them to obey simply because God gave it. The same with the Sabbath commandment: the only reason it is right to keep the Sabbath every seventh day of the week is that God blessed the seventh-day of the week and commanded us to keep it holy. It makes good sense for people to rest one day in seven, but the seventh-day-ness of the Sabbath is based strictly on the say-so of God and not on any harmful consequences of not keeping the Sabbath on Saturday.

[Robert]

Complete obedience does not mean believers don't make mistakes or ever commit a sin.

Sure it does. Let's look at the context:

PC- RH

PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

DT- 05-07-01

AT- The Great Standard of Righteousness

PR- 09

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty.

[John317]

Quote:

ROBERT: Yes natural....God supernaturally kept it from happening because sin causes decay in the earth and everything it touches.

Quote:

RICHARD HOLBROOK, quoting: Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the Flood to the operation of natural causes. {PP 119}

Good and very apropros quote, Richard.

I'm surprised that even some SDAs say the same thing, that the Flood was completely natural and that God didn't cause it. All in order to avoid the fact that God decided to make it Flood as punishment for sin.

[Robert]

TU

[Robert]

that the Flood was completely natural and that God didn't cause it.

Doesn't make sense for God to kill....It's all so inconsistent. How? God kills his creation because of sin (in your view), but the author of sin is allowed to keep on keeping on. Why not stop sin at its source?