Lesson Study #6 - The Earth After the Flood

As I will be away from the computer tomorrow, I am creating this one tonight, which can be directly accessed at the following link:

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/06d/less06.html

Let the discussion of this new study begin.

From the Sabbath Afternoon page, I quote this interesting portion:



After such a devasting worldwide Flood, why didn't the people get the message?

Sunday's study introduces a New Earth, however, what is different about this New Earth from the New Earth we are looking forward to today?

The New Earth after the Flood is far from being the New Earth after the 1,000 years in heaven comes to a close and God creates a truly New Earth where there won't be any taints of sin.

I think they did get the message. They knew that God hated sin and rebellion, that He was well able to destroy the disobedient. In fact, they later made a skyscraper to avoid the consequences of their sin.

What they didn't get was the Message - Christ. Without Him, there can be no lasting change, there can be no transformation. And it is this lack of conversion that leads men to cling to sin while desperately trying to avoid its consequences, proving that they believe Satan's lie - sin and live.

You must have intended to say that they received the message but not the Messenger, correct?

Yes, they did seem to get the message in regards to consequences and judgement for their sins, but totally missed out on the only way to be overcomers of those sins, thus they messed up in regards to the Messenger behind the message.

Man, then tried, and man today are still trying to find a way to get away from the consequences of their sins.

Monday's study on Blood and Life seems to be another reaction by God to sin and man's activity to man as a result of their sinful and fallen condition.



With this comes the following question in Monday's study:

Actually, I meant Message, not Messenger.

True, Jesus was the Angel/Messenger of the Lord. But what is the message He brings to us? It is God's revelation of Himself.

As the "express image" of the Father, Jesus Christ is the Message. He reveals God to us as nothing else can. As John put it, "In the beginning was the Word, ... and the Word was God."

If you think about it that way, you will see why even conservative bastions of truth are not necessarily the best exhibits of Christianity. One who receives and accepts the whole message has been merely indoctrinated. To be converted, one must receive the one and only Message.

I re-read your post more carefully and now saw there that you were referring to Christ as The Message.

The beginning of Tuesday's study is interesting in relation to getting, or not getting the message.



Even Christ's disciples didn't really get the message, or The Message, until after they saw Christ after His resurrection.

I think that's very important to understand. God's image in man has been so defaced that even after 3.5 years with Him, the disciples still were not quite on the same page as Jesus. What Jesus said to Peter shortly before his crucifixion is telling: When you are converted, strengthen your brethren.

As we study and teach, we need to go beyond information and focus on transformation. Otherwise, we will just be smart sinners.

Even?
Nothing new under the sun in that department. Reading the gospels is sufficient evidence of that.

Continuing with the thought behind Tuesday's study, even Noah got himself drunk with wine to the extent he lay naked, which then led to Ham's sin.



Even Noah sinned, which led to Ham's sinning also, which led on to other sins, which is eventually bringing the world back to the state it was before the Flood, if it hasn't already happened.

In my experience, conservatives, as opposed to liberals, have a much better handle on doctrine. They are much more obsessed by doctrinal purity. Only truth can set us free, but we must allow it to set us free from that which enslaves us. Else, we are just well-informed slaves. The Pharisees showed us how that goes.

The opposite, but no less dangerous error of liberalism was exemplified by the Sadducees. We should note that when confronted with the Truth, they teamed with the Pharisees to murder Him. Error, no matter which kind, always opposes God.

The attitude we need to have is the attitude the disciples had. When Jesus found them, they were not saints. Even after 3.5 years, they were still not saints. But the secret of their success, which generally eluded both Pharisee and Sadducee, is that they 1) wanted to know God's will, 2) were willing to do God's will, and 3) did God's will in His strength. Essentially, they understood the truth, AND they stood under the truth.

We touched on this last week in my SS class. Noah's perfection before the Flood and his fall after the Flood highlights various facets of the fact that Noah found grace in God's eyes.

Did Noah really sin? It says he planted wine and then got drunk, but scripture doesnt say that he sinned in doing this. And acctually, neither does the SDA bible commentary as quoted.

Besides, is there any person in the bible besides Jesus who lived wholy perfect throughout their lives?

I dont think obsession is anywhere near showing a good handle on the area of obsession. As you point out, the Pharisees where obsessed with the law but that didnt give them any cred with Jesus.
The truth will indeed set us free, even from the slavery of obsession.We could note as did Paul that if one mixes conservatives and liberals, one needs only add one spark before sitting down and watching the show. And here I thought the secret of their success was somehow tied to the Holy Spirit and pentecost. But I guess that if you know God wants you to preach and you are willing to do so, 3000 people are going to ask you how they can be saved and will request baptism the very same day...

Why dont more SDA pastors follow this 3 stepp plan to evangelistic success?

But isn't getting drunk a sin? Galatians 5:21.

Is there a difference between being drunk and drunkenness? Now I do not know what applies to Noah but could there be a difference between being drunk and being in the habbit of being drunk?

NOTE: this should not be taken to be a defence of missuse of alcohol.

Not to detract from the present discussion, seeing this is Wednesday, I want to bring Wednesday's study on Scoffers—Past and Present into the discussion.


Anybody willing to take a stab at answering the above quoted questions?

How can one get drunk for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31)?
Besides, I can’t think of anything that is correct if done once but incorrect if it becomes a habit. Habits are right or wrong depending on whether the action repeated is right or wrong.

I would like to add that there are levels of "wrongness" available. Doing the wrong thing because of ignorance or carelessness is not quite the same as the identical action done willfully.

The question is also if something that is wrong by definition also is something that is sinful? Does wrong always equal sin?

While this interesting discussion continues, I want to being Thursday's study on The Tower of Babel into the topic.

What was wrong with them wanting to build such a high tower to the extent that God did such a supernatural thing as to confound their one language into a multitude of languages?

In terms of 1John 1:8, Yes.

In terms of 1John 3:9, No.

Building a tower, not matter how high, is not inherently bad. But doing anything, no matter how seemingly insignificant, because one does not believe what God said? That's always bad; fatally bad.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

I dont see this as adressing the question at all.Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Neither this.
Though these are some interesting quotes and some hard onces. Its no superficial study to read 1 John.

I suppose that if Noah got drunk because he was not familiar with the effects of fermented wine, then this wouldn't be considered a sin (if we consider that a sin of ignorance does not imply guilt - John 9:41).

So you would say that something considered wrong automatically is also something sinful?

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

The verse was not the answer. The verse defined the question. If you mean sin the way 1Jn 1:8 uses it, then the answer to your question is Yes. If you mean sin the way 1Jn 1:9 uses it, then the answer to your question is No.

I disagree. If doing x is wrong but not a sin, or if doing x is wrong and sin, does not make a difference with either of these verses. As to verse 1:8, if you do x and it is wrong but not a sin, you are sinful nontheless becourse of whatever else you have done. As to verse 3:9, if x is wrong and sin you will be lead not to do it. If I am understanding the verse correctly.

I'm obviously not explaining myself well. Let me back up from 1John and try another way.

As Rosangela referenced, John 9:41 tells us that an event can be a sin (or not) depending on one's level of knowledge (or ignorance). James 4:17 tells us also that what we know can determine whether or not a particular action is sin for us. (See also Rom 3:20, 5:13, 7:8-9; 1Co 15:56.) When you know the difference between right and wrong, and you choose the wrong, you are guilty. When you have no light on the matter, guilt is not imputed to you.

This is how many people view sin. Here's one popular definition of sin: To willfully violate God’s law. Sin is defined in terms of the subjective standard of what the sinner knows and what he chooses to do about it. In short, sin is a choice.

If this is your definition of sin, then the answer is No. Action X may or may not be sin, depending on your knowledge of God's law and your choice to obey or disobey.

But that's not all there is to it. If it was, then Jesus would not have told the disciples to teach all nations. His commission might have been more like, "Do not tell anyone about the things I commanded you; they'll be saved anyway. I'll just teach them when they get to Heaven." There would be no arguments about salvation by faith vs. salvation by works; all would be agreed on salvation by ignorance.

Look at the sin offering described in Leviticus 4. Every sin there is an unintentional sin ("sin through ignorance" in KJV). But every sin there incurs guilt. And every sin there requires the blood of the lamb, which must be offered as soon as the sinner discovers his sin.

This sin is of a different nature from the "sin by choice" described above. In this case, sin is defined by God's objective, immutable law. Sin is sin, regardless of one's knowledge or ignorance. Therefore, the Lamb must die for the sin, whether or not the sinner knows about it. The only question is, "When will the sinner find out about his sin, and will he take advantage of the Lamb's blood?" In short, sin is a state of being.

If this is your definition of sin, then the answer is Yes. Action X is a sin if it is wrong (i.e. incongruent with God's will).

Hope that clarifies.

If you dig a bit, you'll find that though it doesn't really have anything to do with Pentecost itself, each of the 3 steps has everything to do with the Holy Spirit: 1) the Spirit leads us into all truth, 2) the Spirit empowers us to will and to do of His good pleasure, and 3) only in submission to the Spirit can we be children of God.

If a preacher was willing to do this, it is definitely possible for 3000 to be converted each time out. But the miracle is not that many are baptized, but that individuals are redeemed from slavery to self, sin, and Satan. Fundamentally, this is not a plan for evangelistic success, but for basic Christianity.

Why don't more pastors follow this plan? Why don't more average-Joe "Christians" follow this plan? The answer is the same: self is alive and well. If we would allow self to be crucified by grace, there would be radical changes.

We are once again discussing from different questions. The specific issue at hand is, just becourse Noah became drunk, it was said that he sinned in becoming drunk. Now if being drunk is a sin, then it is of course a sin wether the drunk person knows it or not. But the question in discussion does not assume being drunk is a sin (you cant learn by asking questions youve already made up your mind about). We think that being drunk is wrong. The question is if it is therefore a sin before God or not. That all humans are sinners and that those who walk by Gods spirit do not sin are irrelevant for the question of being drunk until it has been established if in fact being drunk is a sin or not.

If Noah believed that God wanted him to be sober, yet he chose to be drunk, then it is definitely sin - sin as a choice.

If God wanted Noah to be sober, and Noah had no idea about the topic, then it is not a sin of choice. But if his actions, regardless of his ignorance, conflicts with God's will, then it is a sin - sin as a state.

So, is being drunk a sin? Yes and No, depending what you mean by sin.

Here's an outline of how our class discussion went:

• Meat-eating, which God allowed, shortened man's life.
• Man was created in God's image.
• By sin, that image has been marred and well-nigh obliterated.
• Even so, God forbade killing people because we were made in His image.
• God's laws included the death penalty for some sins.
• There were instances when God commanded that people be killed ("Sabbath stick gatherer", Amalekites, etc.).

What are the principles governing capital punishment and how do we apply them today?