Who or What caused the Flood?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/13/05 11:14 PM

Who or What caused the Flood?

I believe the Bible and the SOP make it crystal clear that God caused the forces of nature to destroy the world with a flood.

There are people, however, who are not so sure it was God who caused the flood. What do you believe?

PP 85
Through holy angels God revealed to Enoch His purpose to destroy the world by a flood, and He also opened more fully to him the plan of redemption. {PP 85.5}

PP 92
A hundred and twenty years before the Flood, the Lord by a holy angel declared to Noah His purpose, and directed him to build an ark. While building the ark he was to preach that God would bring a flood of water upon the earth to destroy the wicked. {PP 92.2}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/14/05 09:27 PM

Tom Ewall has said he isn't sure what caused the Flood, but his views about God and destruction imply God most likely didn't cause it.

Is the Bible or the SOP unclear as to who or what caused the Flood?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/15/05 02:09 AM

Tom will most likely not participate in this study, though he is more than welcome, so, is there anyone out there who has a burden to share what they believe about the Flood?

The reason it is important to take a stand on this issue is because there are people out there who are teaching that God did not cause the Flood. There are different reasons why people believe this, one of them being they believe it is a sin to kill people, even sinners, and since God has never sinned it is not possible that He killed them with a Flood.

Building on this logic, some people go on to say that God has never killed anyone, that all the tragic deaths recorded in the Bible were caused by Satan. Still others take it one step farther and say God will not kill anyone in the lake of fire, that the lake of fire is symbolic and not literal. Some who believe this also say death is simply the result of God withdrawing His protection and allowing the sinners to be consumed by His glory and brightness.

If you do not believe these things, then, please, state your position here and now. Thank you.
Posted By: John H.

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/15/05 04:28 AM

God caused the Flood, completely, absolutely. Both the Bible and SOP are crystal clear on that point. Many passages can be posted here if need be, though finding ample evidence of this should be pretty easy for anyone with access to a Bible, an online Bible site such as Bible Gateway, and an EGW CD-ROM or the White Estate online searchable database. (In other words, anyone with an internet connection!)
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/19/05 10:30 PM

The following verse testifies to that:

quote:

Genesis 6:17 NKJV And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.

God Himself in the above verse said that He did it Himself. That is what "Myself" in the above text means.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/19/05 11:04 PM

What about the destruction of Jerusalem?

quote:
1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.

4"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'

5"But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

Doesn't this say that God destroyed Jerusalem?

What about this verse?

quote:
7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Does God create evil?

How about this one?

quote:
13 So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the LORD, because he did not keep the word of the LORD, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance.

14 But he did not inquire of the LORD; therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

Here's one more:

quote:
20 And the LORD said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The LORD said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the LORD said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the LORD has declared disaster against you.” (1 Kings 22:20-23)
Does God create evil? Did He kill Saul? Did He send a lying spirit to deceive Ahab? Did He destroy Jerusalem? Does He send a strong delusion to deceive those who reject Him?

What is the principle involved in determining when God is doing something, as opposed to someone else (such as Satan, or the persons involved)?
Posted By: Claudia Thompson

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/20/05 06:24 AM

Well when you look at the flood you will see that Satan himself was right there fearing for his own existence. So it seems reasonable to assume it was God who caused it and not Satan.

Patriarchs and Prophets, page 99, paragraph 3
Chapter Title: The Flood
"As the violence of the storm increased, trees, buildings, rocks, and earth were hurled in every direction. The terror of man and beast was beyond description. Above the roar of the tempest was heard the wailing of a people that had despised the authority of God. Satan himself, who was compelled to remain in the midst of the warring elements, feared for his own existence. He had delighted to control so powerful a race, and desired them to live to practice their abominations and continue their rebellion against the Ruler of heaven. He now uttered imprecations against God, charging Him with injustice and cruelty."

...and you cant get much clearer than the Bible verse that Daryl pointed brought up.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/20/05 07:49 AM

The question I brought up in the other thread (which nobody has tried to answer yet) is how can we tell when it is God who is doing something which is ascribed to Him in inspiration. I gave many examples of things which says that God did something which he didn't do. Here's a list of some things:

1)The destruction of Jeruslem. (Matt. 22:1-7; Mark 12:1-9)
2)Moving David to number Israel.(2 Sam. 24:1)
3)Killing Saul.(1 Chron. 10:13)
4)Send a strong delusion to those who refuse to believe the truth so they will believe a lie. (2 Thess. 2:11)

The Bible says God did these things, but He didn't do any of these things. So just because the Bible says God did something, doesn't mean He did it. It could mean He permitted it to happen, which is indeed what it does mean in each of the 4 cases mentioned above.

Therefore simply stating that because something in inspiration says God did something is not sufficient to establish that He actually caused the thing to happen, rather than permitted it to.

Even if the Lord speaks in first person, it doen't mean He is saying that He is causing something to happen, rather than permitting it to happen. For example in Isa. 45:7 God says, "I create evil".
Posted By: John H.

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/20/05 10:05 PM

Tom, sometimes when God allows things to happen, He speaks as though He did it Himself, that's true.

But sometimes He does things Himself and speaks as though He did it Himself. Which is to be expected, isn't it.

In the case of the Flood -- if God didn't cause that to happen, who did? Who else has the power to cause such a humongous worldwide catastrophe? Certainly not Satan or his angels. They can cause storms etc., but nothing like the Flood. And it didn't just sort of happen all by itself, at random.
Posted By: Restin

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/21/05 05:30 AM

The Adventist Book Center has several very good books concerning the Noachan flood, from the SDA standpoint. And they are surprisingly scientific and well researched, amply able to stand up to evolutionary theories. http://www.adventistbookcenter.com/
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/21/05 07:19 AM

John: Tom, sometimes when God allows things to happen, He speaks as though He did it Himself, that's true.

But sometimes He does things Himself and speaks as though He did it Himself. Which is to be expected, isn't it.

Tom: I assume by "things" here, you mean bad things, like killing, maiming, destroying, inflicting with disease; things like this. Why would it be expected that God would do things like this?

How do we know sometimes He does things Himself? How do we know when inspiration is speaking of God doing that which He permits, and when it means God is Himself doing the "bad" thing.

John: In the case of the Flood -- if God didn't cause that to happen, who did?

Tom: Who caused Black Holes to happen? Who causes the stars to die?

John: Who else has the power to cause such a humongous worldwide catastrophe? Certainly not Satan or his angels. They can cause storms etc., but nothing like the Flood. And it didn't just sort of happen all by itself, at random.

Tom: Where does the power of Satan end? How would you know what is something beyond Satan's power, and what isn't?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/21/05 07:23 AM

"The Adventist Book Center has several very good books concerning the Noachan flood, from the SDA standpoint. And they are surprisingly scientific and well researched, amply able to stand up to evolutionary theories."

The books I have read about the flood point out that the flood began by water exploding from the depths of the ocean and rising to the atmosphere. A theory is that something like tectanic plate opened up and water went gushing up from the ocean to the atmosphere, which came back down to the earth as rain. Has anyone read something like this?
Posted By: vastergotland

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/21/05 01:13 PM

If satan has the power to do major things like the flood that the bible ascribes to God, would that mean that the only difference between the powers of God and satan is the creative power? Do we then have the situation of two "gods" waging war on earth? In contrast to a created being in rebellion using whatever propaganda means he can to bring as many others as possible with him in the rebellion?

/Thomas
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/21/05 03:57 PM

It is interesting that when we view large scale destructive powers, we say that whoever can do it is God. Why do we link up destruction with God? Would man be "God" if he were to destroy the world with say several "neutron bombs"? Now if man is capable of destroying this world even more spectacularly, why do we think it strange that Satan should be capable to do so? Do we not consider that the only reason that man has not destroyed this world yet is because of the restraining influence of God's spirit.

The controversy is between good and evil; between life and death; between the eternal life that was revealed unto us in Christ and him that has the power of death, that is the Devil.
Posted By: vastergotland

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/21/05 04:30 PM

Dont forget Noa. Or do you see God keeping satan back for 120 years waiting for Noa to finnish the ark?
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/22/05 01:48 AM

The wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Every thought of man was "only evil" continually. It should be easy to comprehend how much work God had in restraining the tide of evil. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man.

For 120 years more God strove with man to save him, and the record tells us that outside of Noah and his family, not even one heeded; not even the hired workers who helped build the ark.

Every thought of man was "only evil continually". With so much evil thought, how can we think that they would have gone on living just fine once the Lord ceased striving with man (withdrew his spirit)?

The controversy is between good and evil; between life and death; between the eternal life that was revealed unto us in Christ and him that has the power of death, that is the Devil.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/22/05 05:50 AM

If the contest of the Great Controversy were one of power, it would have been over in a moment. God is infinitely powerful; Satan's power is infintesimal in comparison.

However the controversy is not one of power, but one of character. Satan's method from the very beginning has been to invest God with his own character.

I've been asking for some time, without any answer yet, what principle should be used to determine whether God has done something attributed to Him by inspiration or not. A principle of asking how difficult the task is seems to have been suggested. If it's a task we think is too difficult for Satan to do, then it must have been God?

There's another possibility to God or Satan causing the flood. That is that God was restraining forces of nature to prevent the flood from occuring, and withdrew His restraint. It would make sense for inspiration to describe such an act of God as His causing the flood. It would certainly be something He had direct control over, if this were the case.

Regarding Satan fearing for his life, it makes sense to me that if Satan did something to cause the flood that God would hold him to the earth to experience the fury of his own making. Kind of ironic.

The whole question of Satan fearing for his life is an interesting one. Why would an angel be afraid of a flood?
Posted By: John H.

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/22/05 05:15 PM

Tom, have you considered the fact that EGW stated time and again that God caused the Flood, in modern language so plain that none need miss it?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/23/05 06:31 AM

Why would the fact that it is stated in modern language change anything? Isn't the fact the Bible says something sufficient?

My question is that there are times in the Bible which state that God did something. How do we know if it is speaking of something He permitted, or did Himself?

For example, consider the destruction of Jerusalem, or the final judgments before Christ's coming. The Bible says it is God who does these things, but the Spirit of Prophesy says God permits these things. Another example would be 2 Thess. 2 where it speaks of God's sending a strong delusion to those who have rejected the truth. According to the Spirit of Prophesy, God turns those who have rejected the truth over to the lies and deceptions they love.

So what is the principle? If the Spirit of Prophesy confirms that God did something, *then* we understand God did it? That is, if we have the statement in modern language, we can accept it?

I've been asking, for some time now (without any answers) what is the PRINCIPLE that we should use for determining whether we should understand if God is doing something which is attributed to Him, or if He is permitting said action.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/22/05 08:42 PM

quote:
My question is that there are times in the Bible which state that God did something. How do we know if it is speaking of something He permitted, or did Himself?
Tom,

I think the first thing is to pay attention to what the Bible itself says, for most of the times the Bible itself clears things up.
About David's numbering of Israel, for instance, 1 Chron. 21:1 explains 2 Sam. 24:1; about the bad things that happened to Job, Job 2:3 is explained by Job 1:12. About the destruction of Jerusalem, it was permitted by God, not caused by God, because pagan kings are controlled by Satan. The power which caused the destruction of Jerusalem has even received a name: the abomination of desolation (Dan. 9:26,27; Matt. 24:15).
God's sending a strong delusion to those who have rejected the truth means He permitted, not caused, them to be deluded, since other passages say that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), and that He does not wish “that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).
As to the seven last plagues, I don’t see Ellen White as saying that they were not sent by God.
About the The plagues in Egypt, the flood, Soddom and Gomorrah, the slaying of people by angels, Herod's death, Ananias and Saphira, as you said, they are all ascribed only to God, both in the Bible and in the writings of EGW. So what reason would we have to think that they were not caused by God?
Posted By: vastergotland

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/22/05 08:45 PM

I suggest that whenever the bibleauthor is quoting God, the words should be understood as having the obvious meaning unless interpreted by the same or another bible author.

/Thomas

//I agree with what Rosangela wrote
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/22/05 09:18 PM

What do you do in the case that the Spirit of Prophesy gives a different interpretation?
Posted By: vastergotland

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/22/05 09:21 PM

Are you suggesting that Ellen sometimes contradicts the bible?

/Thomas
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/23/05 02:01 AM

You wrote:

quote:
I suggest that whenever the bibleauthor is quoting God, the words should be understood as having the obvious meaning unless interpreted by the same or another bible author.
Your principle here seems to saying that if an incident is credited to God, than you should consider that God did it, unless somewhere else in the Bible it says otherwise. So basically you seem to be agreeing with principle number 2 I suggested:

If inspiration presents God as doing something "bad", then we assume that it is He who is doing the thing, unless some other text in inspiration shows it is not really God, but Satan, in which case we understand that it is really Satan.

However, you stated the principle a little different than I did, because you didn't include the Spirit of Prophesy in here, but just the Bible. So you are suggesting if a Bible author reinterprets an event, then go by the reinterpretation. I'm asking you what you do if the Spirit of Prophesy reiterprets an event.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/23/05 02:39 AM

Old Tom: My question is that there are times in the Bible which state that God did something. How do we know if it is speaking of something He permitted, or did Himself?

RR: Tom,

I think the first thing is to pay attention to what the Bible itself says, for most of the times the Bible itself clears things up.

Tom: This is assuming the conclusion, isn't it? You would only know that most of the time the Bible clears itself up if you assume that the only things to be cleared up are what the Bible or the Spirit of Prophesy clears up. But that's exactly what's under discussion. How do you know if something needs to be cleared up? Are the only possible things that need to be cleared up which the Bible missed things which the Spirit of Prophesy cleared up?

R: About David's numbering of Israel, for instance, 1 Chron. 21:1 explains 2 Sam. 24:1; about the bad things that happened to Job, Job 2:3 is explained by Job 1:12. About the destruction of Jerusalem, it was permitted by God, not caused by God, because pagan kings are controlled by Satan.
The power which caused the destruction of Jerusalem has even received a name: the abomination of desolation (Dan. 9:26,27; Matt. 24:15).

Tom: Your idea about the destruction of Jerusalem is not one I've heard before. It's not the one given by the Spirit of Prophesy. Here's what she wrote:

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, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control. {GC 35.3}
Can you substantiate the points made by the Spirit of Prophesy from the Bible?

R: God's sending a strong delusion to those who have rejected the truth means He permitted, not caused, them to be deluded, since other passages say that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), and that He does not wish “that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).
As to the seven last plagues, I don’t see Ellen White as saying that they were not sent by God.

Tom: I know you don't believe this, which is why I used the wording the final judgments of God, because that's the language the Spirit of Prophesy used.

R: About the The plagues in Egypt, the flood, Soddom and Gomorrah, the slaying of people by angels, Herod's death, Ananias and Saphira, as you said, they are all ascribed only to God, both in the Bible and in the writings of EGW. So what reason would we have to think that they were not caused by God?

Tom: This is what I'm asking. We have a number of passages, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the final judgments of God, or however you want to call it, where God is presented in Scripture as actively doing something which the Spirit of Prophesy presents Him as permitting.

quote:
When Christ ceases His intercession in the sanctuary, the unmingled wrath threatened against those who worship the beast and his image and receive his mark (Revelation 14:9, 10), will be poured out.
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.
These are both from GC, "The Time of Trouble". This seems to me to be describing the same event. You seem to have a view where God and Satan are working together to do the same thing; both of them inflicting disease, maiming, and destroying the wicked. This doesn't make sense to me. If one passage presents God as doing something active (e.g. pouring out His wrath, visiting judgments upon thme) and another presents God as permitting Satan to have control over them, then it seems to me that we can understand that God's turning them over to Satan's control IS His executing judgment upon them and pouring out His wrath.

For example, from "The Destruction of Jerusalem"

quote:
The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. {GC 36.1}
There can be no more decisive testimony of God's hatred of sin and the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty than the destruction of Jerusalem. Many times Ellen White compares the destruction of the end of time before Christ comes to the destruction of Jersualem, explaining that God's Spirit, persistently resisted, is finally withdrawn. This is spoken of as God's wrath, His hatred for sin, His judgments, and His punishment of sin. She also says the same thing with regard to the destruction of the wicked:

quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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 764.1}
Look how similar these are:

1) Destruction of Jerusalem:
"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." {GC 35.3}

2) Before Christ's coming:
"Then shall they that obey not the gospel be consumed with the spirit of His mouth and be destroyed with the brightness of His coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Like Israel of old the wicked destroy themselves; they fall by their iniquity. By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire." {GC 37.1}

3) The judgement of the wicked:
"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 764.1}

These three events have much in common. They all describe the principles of God's wrath. God works through His Spirit to woo those who are not right with Him, warning them of the results of choosing their own way. If they persist in their course, God's Spirit is finally withdrawn, and ruin is the inevitable result.

Since this is already long, I'll follow up with another post dealing more directly with an excellent question you asked.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/23/05 03:03 AM

quote:
About the The plagues in Egypt, the flood, Soddom and Gomorrah, the slaying of people by angels, Herod's death, Ananias and Saphira, as you said, they are all ascribed only to God, both in the Bible and in the writings of EGW. So what reason would we have to think that they were not caused by God?
It seems to me there are two possible principles one can use here, which are the two I suggested in the other thread. Either one can take the position that God is presented in inspiration as doing that which He permits as the principle which explains the acts where God appears to be doing "bad" things, or one can use the principle that we should understand that God is doing the "bad" thing, unless inspiration elsewhere says He's not.

This appears to me to be the only two options. The principle that God should be considered as the one maiming/inflicting disease, destroying etc. unless there is some other incident saying He is not doing it seems problematic to me. Why should we assume God is doing these things? We have the precident that God is NOT doing these things when He is presented as doing them. Why can't we apply this precident to other cases? Must God have a prophet explain every single incident to us? Why can't we take a look at the perfect reveltion of God's character, which is Jesus Christ, and judge by that?

Here's a specific example. Samuel describes the scene where God calls for someone to deceive Ahab. A lying spirit volunteers. God says, "Go ahead, lie!" which the spirit does. Now Mike uses this as proof that God lies, because he reasons (correctly) that God would be just as guilty of lying in sending someone to lie for Him as if He had done it Himself.

I would argue that God cannot lie because that is foreign to His character. We see this from His holy law, and from the character of Jesus Christ, who was the perfect revelation of His character. So I would suggest the passage should be understood in this way:

1. The lying spirit wanted to deceive Ahab.
2. God gave the spirit to do that.

As far as I am aware, there is nothing in inspiration (either the Bible or the Spirit of Prophesy) which directly states that God did not lie in this instance. Yet we can piece together evidence regarding God's character to come to the conclusion that the above (what I suggested) must have been what happened. I think everybody on this forum, except for MM, would agree with the interpretation of the lying spirit deceiving Ahab that I have given.

Is it contrary to God's character to inflict His creatures with disease? This is a question each one needs to decide for Himself, but as for me I believe there is ample evidence to suggest that it is. So if there are incidents in inspiration which appear to say that God is doing this, I would apply the same principle to those incidents that I have applied to the Ahab incident.

In the book of Job, the curtain is drawn away, and we see that it is Satan who was doing the terrible things which appeared to have been being caused by God. Must the curtain be taken away each and every time for us to believe that it really isn't God which is doing the terrible things?

Can we imagine Jesus doing such a thing as inflicting someone with disease? It reminds me of a joke which goes like this: A man with a withered hand raises up his hand and says, "Lord, make my hand like the other one" and the next instant both his hands are withered. This would be such a cruel thing for God to do, that it's the type of joke that makes one wince, because of what it says about God's character. The concept of God's inflicting disease reminds me of this joke.

Jesus said He came not to destroy, but to heal. Wherever He passed through, disease was not to be found. He had to leave in order of Lazarus to pass away so He could resurrect him. Everything in Christ's ministry points to the fact that God is fighting against that which Satan does and that the principles of His government are completely contrary to the principles of Satan's.

So the short version of the long answer to your question is that God does not do bad things because it is contrary to His character. We have enough evidence regarding His character to know that when He is presented as doing something bad it means He is permitting the bad thing to happen. We do not need an inspired author to go through each and every incident of God's doing a "bad" thing and explain that it is not actually God doing it. This is one possibility.

Another possibility is we do need an inspired author to go through each and every incident and explain it for us, because if they don't, then we will assume whenever inspiration records God as doing something "bad", then God did it.

I'm having trouble stopping. Sorry about that. With regard to God sending a strong delusion, you (Rosangela) used the principle that God is not willing that any should perish but come to the knowledge of the truth to explain that it didn't mean that God was literally sending them a lie, but rather was permitting them to be deceived. I think your reasoning is perfectly sound in doing this, and this same exact reasoning can be applied to other circumstances.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/23/05 05:37 AM

So the question really is whether we have accepted the divine revelation of the character of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Is Christ the meaningful guideline of undertanding truth?

Has our concept of justice been born again in Christ?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/23/05 07:34 AM

Jesus said, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" (John 5:19) Also "I speak that which I have seen with my Father" (John 8:38).

Where did Jesus see what the Father did and hear what He said? From the Scriptures, the Old Testament, the only Bible He had.

What we see in Christ is something beautiful. The beauty we see in Christ, is the beauty He saw in His Father, in the Old Testament.

If we see something different when we look at the God of the Old Testament than we see when we look in Christ, then we are seeing something different than Christ saw. Because what Christ saw is what He was.

Whose vision of God will we believe; His or ours?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/23/05 04:37 PM

quote:
Can you substantiate the points made by the Spirit of Prophesy from the Bible?
About the destruction of Jerusalem, I see no discrepancy whatever between what the Bible says and what Ellen White says. She says that the destruction of Jerusalem was not caused by a direct decree of God, and this is true, because the abomination of desolation is a power controlled by Satan, which opposes God. She says that the Jews brought destruction upon themselves, quoting the Bible (Hosea 13:9 ;14:1), and this is true, because they rejected God (John 19:15), choosing therefore to yield to the control of Satan. Satan led them to rebel against the romans, who in turn destroyed them.
quote:
This seems to me to be describing the same event.
The plagues are described in Rev. 15 as something God sends. The winds are described in Rev. 7 as something God permits. These passages clearly refer to the same period of time. The problem is exactly to determine if they are describing the same event or if they are describing parallel/distinct events. I’m inclined to think that they describe distinct events, but I wouldn’t take a radical position.

About Ahab. Of course Micaiah had a vision in the form of a parable. If God wanted Ahab to be deceived He wouldn’t have told him the truth and warned him through Micaiah.
quote:
So the short version of the long answer to your question is that God does not do bad things because it is contrary to His character. We have enough evidence regarding His character to know that when He is presented as doing something bad it means He is permitting the bad thing to happen.
Most of the times this is true. But sometimes God has to do something bad to prevent the occurrence of something worse.

“Love no less than justice demanded that for this sin judgment should be inflicted. God is the guardian as well as the sovereign of His people. He cuts off those who are determined upon rebellion, that they may not lead others to ruin. In sparing the life of Cain, God had demonstrated to the universe what would be the result of permitting sin to go unpunished. The influence exerted upon his descendants by his life and teaching led to the state of corruption that demanded the destruction of the whole world by a flood. The history of the antediluvians testifies that long life is not a blessing to the sinner; God's great forbearance did not repress their wickedness. The longer men lived, the more corrupt they became. So with the apostasy at Sinai. Unless punishment had been speedily visited upon transgression, the same results would again have been seen. The earth would have become as corrupt as in the days of Noah. Had these transgressors been spared, evils would have followed, greater than resulted from sparing the life of Cain. It was the mercy of God that thousands should suffer, to prevent the necessity of visiting judgments upon millions. In order to save the many, He must punish the few.” {PP 325}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 06:58 AM

Old Tom: Can you substantiate the points made by the Spirit of Prophesy from the Bible?

Rosangela: About the destruction of Jerusalem, I see no discrepancy whatever between what the Bible says and what Ellen White says.

Tom: Just to be clear about my own view, I'm not suggesting there's a descreprancy. I believe the Bible is saying the same thing as the Spirit of Prophesy because I believe God is presented, as a general principle, as doing that which He permits.

Regarding your response, Mark 12 says:

"Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others."

and Matthew 26

"But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city."

This language presents God as being active in the destruction of Jerusalem. If you look at other commentaries, I doubt you will find any of them taking the position that Ellen White lines out in the first chapter of The Great Controversy, which is that Satan was responsible for their destruction, passing it off as something God was doing in order to cover his own work. It is this principle I was asking you to substantiate from Scripture.

Rosangela: She says that the destruction of Jerusalem was not caused by a direct decree of God, and this is true, because the abomination of desolation is a power controlled by Satan, which opposes God.

Tom: The Bible says it was by a direct decree of God. "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city."

Rosangela: She says that the Jews brought destruction upon themselves, quoting the Bible (Hosea 13:9 ;14:1), and this is true, because they rejected God (John 19:15), choosing therefore to yield to the control of Satan. Satan led them to rebel against the romans, who in turn destroyed them.

Tom: It's always true that when God is rejected they yield to the control of Satan, which leads to their ruin. This is a universal principle, not something limited to the Jews.

Old Tom:This seems to me to be describing the same event.

Rosangela: The plagues are described in Rev. 15 as something God sends. The winds are described in Rev. 7 as something God permits. These passages clearly refer to the same period of time. The problem is exactly to determine if they are describing the same event or if they are describing parallel/distinct events. I’m inclined to think that they describe distinct events, but I wouldn’t take a radical position.

Tom: If you take the position that God is on the one hand actively maiming, inflicting disease, etc. on the wicked at the same time Satan is doing the very same things, this appears to me to be problematic.

Rosangela: About Ahab. Of course Micaiah had a vision in the form of a parable. If God wanted Ahab to be deceived He wouldn’t have told him the truth and warned him through Micaiah.

Tom: It is possible that God would want Ahab to be deceived? Would His character allow this? Is the only reason we know the Ahab story is a parable because of Micaiah?

Old Tom:So the short version of the long answer to your question is that God does not do bad things because it is contrary to His character. We have enough evidence regarding His character to know that when He is presented as doing something bad it means He is permitting the bad thing to happen.

Rosangela: Most of the times this is true. But sometimes God has to do something bad to prevent the occurrence of something worse.

Tom: If it's every true that God does bad things to prevent something worse, then Marx was correct: the ends justify the means.

Is this the principle by which God runs His governemnt? The ends justify the means.

This sounds like a good topic.

“Love no less than justice demanded that for this sin judgment should be inflicted. God is the guardian as well as the sovereign of His people. He cuts off those who are determined upon rebellion, that they may not lead others to ruin. In sparing the life of Cain, God had demonstrated to the universe what would be the result of permitting sin to go unpunished. The influence exerted upon his descendants by his life and teaching led to the state of corruption that demanded the destruction of the whole world by a flood. The history of the antediluvians testifies that long life is not a blessing to the sinner; God's great forbearance did not repress their wickedness. The longer men lived, the more corrupt they became. So with the apostasy at Sinai. Unless punishment had been speedily visited upon transgression, the same results would again have been seen. The earth would have become as corrupt as in the days of Noah. Had these transgressors been spared, evils would have followed, greater than resulted from sparing the life of Cain. It was the mercy of God that thousands should suffer, to prevent the necessity of visiting judgments upon millions. In order to save the many, He must punish the few.” {PP 325}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/23/05 07:32 PM

Does anyone who holds to the traditional view that God does some of the "bad" things attributed to Him disagree with the following principle?

If inspiration presents God as doing something "bad", then we assume that it is He who is doing the thing, unless some other text in inspiration shows it is not really God.
Posted By: vastergotland

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/23/05 11:58 PM

I wonder, is it just me wondering what would happen with the trustworthiness of the bible if we suddenly decided that much what it says about God is no longer God but satan? This is both in the prophets, Jesus teaching and the revelations from patmos. If God is said to have ordered the killings of the firstborn of egypt, the deportation of Israel to assyria and babylon, Jesus telling parables where the King orders the executions of His enemies and then Jesus after going to heavin sending John visions where God is warning the world of destruction to come by the outpoaring of cups of wrath by holy angles. If all this from all parts of the bible would suddenly be ascribed to the devil, then whats next for the editing room? What else have we always missunderstood for the past 3000 years or more that need correcting? Is the bible trustworthy? Can it be trusted to tell the truth?

/Thomas
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 12:34 AM

quote:
I wonder, is it just me wondering what would happen with the trustworthiness of the bible if we suddenly decided that much what it says about God is no longer God but satan? This is both in the prophets, Jesus teaching and the revelations from patmos. If God is said to have ordered the killings of the firstborn of egypt, the deportation of Israel to assyria and babylon, Jesus telling parables where the King orders the executions of His enemies and then Jesus after going to heavin sending John visions where God is warning the world of destruction to come by the outpoaring of cups of wrath by holy angles. If all this from all parts of the bible would suddenly be ascribed to the devil, then whats next for the editing room? What else have we always missunderstood for the past 3000 years or more that need correcting? Is the bible trustworthy? Can it be trusted to tell the truth?
These are excellent questions. When I mentioned there were problems with both principles I suggested, it was precisely the points that you are brining up that I had in mind.

Here are the two principles:
1)God presents Himself as doing that which He permits.
2)God does "bad" things when inspiration doesn't clarify that it wasn't really God.

If we stick to principle 1), then we have a way of explaining difficult areas of inspiration, such as genecide, the inflicting of painful diseases, and other behavior which seems un-Jesus like. However the downside is that this perspective requires a view of inspiration which is more open. That is, taking this point of view can make the Bible appear to be untrustworthy, as you have pointed out in your questions.

If we stick to principle 2), the we believe what inspiration says about God, unless it says something different somewhere else, we mitigate some of the "is the Bible trustworthy" questions. However, we are left with a God who approves of genecide, inflicts disease, and maims those who dare to oppose Him.

I personally have more problems adopting the second view than the first. This is a question each one will have to decide for themselves. I can't make any sense of the statements from inspiration that:
a)God does not use force to compell the conscience.
b)The principles of God's government are love, mercy and truth; force is to be found only in Satan's government.
c)God is good; just like Jesus. When we've seen Jesus, we've seen the Father.

and
d)God will maim, inflict disease, and do countless other nasty things to you if you don't do what He says.

How can these things be rectified? I don't see how. On the other hand, if God says:
a)You are free to do whatever you want.
b)If you choose to reject me, these will be the consequences.

that I can see. This makes sense. If the consequences are ruin, not because God will maim, inflict disease and destroy, but because ruin comes whenever God is rejected, then we have a picture of God as Savior; one who wants to and will rescue His children from disaster, regardless of the cost to Himself. OTOH if God on the on the one hand says, "You are free to do what you want" but on the other says "If you don't do what I tell you, I will boil you in molten lava" then I don't see how this isn't coersion.

The issues of the Great Controversy have to do with:
a)The character of God.
b)The principles of God's government.
c)The nature of sin.

The character of God is precisely that which was revealed by Jesus Christ; gracious, kind, generous, self-sacrificing. The principles of God's government are love, mercy, grace and truth. Cruelty, force and coersion are to be found only in Satan's government. The nature of sin is that there are 1,000 ways it can destroy us, and God lovingly protects us from its damage, but eventually we will be ruined by it if we refuse to abide by the principles of His government, which are love, mercy, grace and truth.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 01:07 AM

The controversy is between Christ and Satan; between good and evil; between life and death; between the eternal life that was revealed unto us in Christ and him that has the power of death, that is the Devil.

Everything becomes clear in Christ.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 02:28 AM

Tom,

The Bible says that a power called the abomination of desolation would destroy Jerusalem, so this explains that Mark 12 and Matt. 26 in fact refer to God´s permission, because pagan nations do not act under God’s, but under Satan’s, control. If Jerusalem had been destroyed by an earthquake, or like Sodom, then it could be argued that it was destroyed by God. Being, as it was, destroyed by a pagan nation, this could only be described as something permitted, not caused, by God.

quote:
Tom: It is possible that God would want Ahab to be deceived? Would His character allow this? Is the only reason we know the Ahab story is a parable because of Micaiah?
No, this is not possible, and the proof is that God presented to Ahab a parable through Micaiah in order to show him, as vividly as He could, the foolishness of trusting in false prophets.

quote:
Tom: If it's every true that God does bad things to prevent something worse, then Marx was correct: the ends justify the means.
After you have convinced me that the fact that God let Satan live was not a bad thing, we will continue this discussion.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 02:55 AM

Rosangela: Tom,

The Bible says that a power called the abomination of desolation would destroy Jerusalem, so this explains that Mark 12 and Matt. 26 in fact refer to God´s permission, because pagan nations do not act under God’s, but under Satan’s, control. If Jerusalem had been destroyed by an earthquake, or like Sodom, then it could be argued that it was destroyed by God. Being, as it was, destroyed by a pagan nation, this could only be described as something permitted, not caused, by God.

Tom: You're reading into the quote. It just says God would destroy and burn the city. Even with your idea about the abomination of desolation, it still doesn't resolve the issue because God could have used the Romans to destroy the Jews. He could have still been the active agent.

The Spirit of Prophesy says what happened was that the Jews came under the control of Satan, who disguised his actions as being something God did. This is not the same thing you are saying, it doesn't seem to me.

Old Tom: It is possible that God would want Ahab to be deceived? Would His character allow this? Is the only reason we know the Ahab story is a parable because of Micaiah?

R: No, this is not possible, and the proof is that God presented to Ahab a parable through Micaiah in order to show him, as vividly as He could, the foolishness of trusting in false prophets.

Tom: Hmmm. My question was, is the only reason we know the Ahab stroy is a parable because of Micaiah, and you answer no, and the proof is Micaiah. Interesting answer.

How about if Micaiah wasn't involved? Then could we know the story was a parable?

Old Tom: If it's every true that God does bad things to prevent something worse, then Marx was correct: the ends justify the means.

R: After you have convinced me that the fact that God let Satan live was not a bad thing, we will continue this discussion.

Tom: God had to let Satan live because the alternative would have been worse. An evil seed of doubt would have remained, questioning whether God was as Satan said He was. The only way God could answer the question as to whether Satan's accusations regarding His character and the principles of His government were correct or not, and if Satan was correct in suggesting that he had a better way, was to allow Satan to live and give him a chance to develop his way of doing things.

When all creation has seen the truth, then the Great Controversy will come to an end.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 03:11 AM

quote:
God could have used the Romans to destroy the Jews.
It’s the same as saying that God used Judas to betray Jesus.

quote:
Tom: Hmmm. My question was, is the only reason we know the Ahab stroy is a parable because of Micaiah, and you answer no, and the proof is Micaiah. Interesting answer.
You asked, “It is possible that God would want Ahab to be deceived?”, to which I replied, “No, this is not possible, and the proof is that God presented to Ahab a parable through Micaiah in order to show him, as vividly as He could, the foolishness of trusting in false prophets.”
As I see it, my answer makes perfect sense.

quote:
Old Tom: If it's every true that God does bad things to prevent something worse, then Marx was correct
quote:
Tom: God had to let Satan live because the alternative would have been worse.
?
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 04:58 AM

quote:
R: After you have convinced me that the fact that God let Satan live was not a bad thing, we will continue this discussion.

Tom: God had to let Satan live because the alternative would have been worse. An evil seed of doubt would have remained, questioning whether God was as Satan said He was. The only way God could answer the question as to whether Satan's accusations regarding His character and the principles of His government were correct or not, and if Satan was correct in suggesting that he had a better way, was to allow Satan to live and give him a chance to develop his way of doing things.

When all creation has seen the truth, then the Great Controversy will come to an end.

What “bad thing” did God do by “letting Satan live”?
Why should God’s mercy and longsuffering be construed as bad?

God’s actions are not one of “show and tell”. Things are not done for display. They are genuine actions from a genuine heart for each and every creation, including Lucifer. God deals and responds to each situation genuinely. The point is to know and understand what he considers proper response.

The one who taught us: Mat 5:44 … Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; could hardly do different himself, when he was confronted with his enemy, including us.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 06:16 AM

I had this in mind, John:

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. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.

But not so when the great controversy shall be ended. Then, the plan of redemption having been completed, the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences. The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then sin has made manifest its nature, Satan his character. Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. (DA 764)

I agree completely with your thoughts regarding God loving His enemies. What Christ commanded is what He was, and what He was is what He saw of His Father.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 01:27 PM

quote:
What “bad thing” did God do by “letting Satan live”?
Just look at this earth and you will have the answer. Billions of creatures suffer and billions will go to the lake of fire because God let Satan live.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 03:11 PM

quote:
John: What “bad thing” did God do by “letting Satan live”?

R: Just look at this earth and you will have the answer. Billions of creatures suffer and billions will go to the lake of fire because God let Satan live.

How do we “blame God” because he is merciful and longsuffering, for letting an “accuser” live?

Are we not then partaking of the “accusations of Satan” instead of partaking of the “Lord’s suffering and mercy”?

Who has forced us to side with Satan?

Why do we not partake of God’s grace?

Whose choice is that?
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 03:41 PM

I know Tom that you had that in mind.

However, every time something is expressed, something is left out. That particular quote, while dealing with possible consequences, has missed telling us that God’s actions were the outworking of “his goodness”; and not just an effort of using the occasion to make a display of “his goodness”. In which case it would not have been his goodness at work, but it would have been “pride”.

The implication that it was a “lesser evil” must be guarded against. A “lesser evil” is “evil” and it has nothing to do with God’s “goodness”.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 04:52 PM

John,

If my horse breaks his leg irreparably, then I should let the animal continue living in agony because I don't love him if I kill him; on the contrary, I'm heartless, mercyless and cruel.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 05:30 PM

Rosangela: Tom,

The Bible says that a power called the abomination of desolation would destroy Jerusalem, so this explains that Mark 12 and Matt. 26 in fact refer to God´s permission, because pagan nations do not act under God’s, but under Satan’s, control. If Jerusalem had been destroyed by an earthquake, or like Sodom, then it could be argued that it was destroyed by God. Being, as it was, destroyed by a pagan nation, this could only be described as something permitted, not caused, by God.

Tom: You're reading into the quote. It just says God would destroy and burn the city. Even with your idea about the abomination of desolation, it still doesn't resolve the issue because God could have used the Romans to destroy the Jews. He could have still been the active agent.

The Spirit of Prophesy says what happened was that the Jews came under the control of Satan, who disguised his actions as being something God did. This is not the same thing you are saying, it doesn't seem to me.

Old Tom: It is possible that God would want Ahab to be deceived? Would His character allow this? Is the only reason we know the Ahab story is a parable because of Micaiah?

R: No, this is not possible, and the proof is that God presented to Ahab a parable through Micaiah in order to show him, as vividly as He could, the foolishness of trusting in false prophets.

Tom: Hmmm. My question was, is the only reason we know the Ahab stroy is a parable because of Micaiah, and you answer no, and the proof is Micaiah. Interesting answer.

How about if Micaiah wasn't involved? Then could we know the story was a parable?

Old Tom: If it's every true that God does bad things to prevent something worse, then Marx was correct: the ends justify the means.

R: After you have convinced me that the fact that God let Satan live was not a bad thing, we will continue this discussion.

Tom: God had to let Satan live because the alternative would have been worse. An evil seed of doubt would have remained, questioning whether God was as Satan said He was. The only way God could answer the question as to whether Satan's accusations regarding His character and the principles of His government were correct or not, and if Satan was correct in suggesting that he had a better way, was to allow Satan to live and give him a chance to develop his way of doing things.

When all creation has seen the truth, then the Great Controversy will come to an end.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 05:38 PM

Tom,

Why did you repeat your post of yesterday?
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/25/05 06:25 AM

quote:
If my horse breaks his leg irreparably, then I should let the animal continue living in agony because I don't love him if I kill him; on the contrary, I'm heartless, mercyless and cruel.
With God, there is no break that is not "repairable”, and the issues are not physical but spiritual. God is in the process of solving these spiritual issues in the only way they can be solved; the way of love and truth, mercy, grace and forgiveness; the weightier matters of the law.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/25/05 06:55 AM

quote:
However, every time something is expressed, something is left out. That particular quote, while dealing with possible consequences, has missed telling us that God’s actions were the outworking of “his goodness”; and not just an effort of using the occasion to make a display of “his goodness”. In which case it would not have been his goodness at work, but it would have been “pride”.

Ok. Good. I was wondering what you were getting at.

Yes, I agree completely. God is not defending Himself for selfish reasons, but for the good of others. Even in His defense, He is acting out the principles of self-sacrificing love which define His character.

That's an important point to bring out.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/25/05 06:57 AM

quote:
Tom,

Why did you repeat your post of yesterday?

I don't know what post you're refering to. Maybe I accidently resubmitted it. Were there two in a row? The whole post reposted? Or just a portion of a post?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/25/05 06:59 AM

quote:
With God, there is no break that is not "repairable”
Of course not, John. It is possible to commit the sin against the Holy Spirit, as the antediluvians. It is possible to resist God until you can no longer be reached by Him, as the Israelites who didn´t repent of worshiping the golden calf, as the inhabitants of Sodom, as the canaanites, as Korah and his associates, as Ananias and Saphira, etc.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 07:05 PM

Tom,
Your post of August 23, 2005 08:55 PM is the same as your post of August 24, 2005 11:30 AM. Or so it seems to me.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/24/05 08:45 PM

Yes, they look the same to me. It was hard to find, because apparently the times that are posted are not universal. That is, there is no 11:30 post on my computer, but I was able to find the ones you were talking about by comparing the minutes (something ending in "30" and "55" resp).

I'm sure what happened was when I brought the computer up the next day, there was the post, and I just thought I hadn't posted it. Sorry for any confusion. Please disregard the second post (or disregard the first one, whichever you prefer).

Also, thank you for your contributions. It's not likely we'll change our overall perspective in our discussion, but we can learn how each other thinks more clearly, and also learn what the implications are of the underlying positions we take.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/25/05 02:27 AM

quote:
R: Of course not, John. It is possible to commit the sin against the Holy Spirit, as the antediluvians. It is possible to resist God until you can no longer be reached by Him, as the Israelites who didn´t repent of worshiping the golden calf, as the inhabitants of Sodom, as the canaanites, as Korah and his associates, as Ananias and Saphira, etc.
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a judgment or attitude which refuses to hear God, because it judges him to be evil. This does not disable God but disables the sinner. While one is in that attitude or judgment he is unable to receive forgiveness because he is condemning, and as such is “in danger” of remaining in eternal damnation.
Of this judgment (enmity) we all partook at one time or another. There is no reason one has to stay in that attitude and judgment, and Christ came to reveal truth; light and life so that all may be saved.

With God, there is no break that is not “repairable”, and the issues are not physical but spiritual. God is in the process of solving these spiritual issues in the only way they can be solved; the way of love and truth, mercy, grace and forgiveness; the weightier matters of the law.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/26/05 06:09 AM

John, you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but both the Bible and Ellen White say clearly that there is a "point of no return", spiritually speaking. Of course the problem is with the sinner, not with God, for God is always willing to forgive. But after the sinner reaches this point of no return, nothing more can be done for him.

The word (mis)translated as “in danger of” is enochos, which means:

1) bound, under obligation, subject to, liable
1a) used of one who is held by, possessed with love, and zeal for anything
1b) in a forensic sense, denoting the connection of a person either with his crime, or with the penalty or trial, or with that against whom or which he has offended
1b1) guilty, worthy of punishment
1b2) guilty of anything
1b3) of the crime
1b4) of the penalty
1b5) liable to this or that tribunal i.e. the punishment to by imposed by this or that tribunal
1b6) of the place where punishment is to be suffered

The horse does break his leg irreparably, whether you admit it or not.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/26/05 04:27 AM

Your commentary on “in danger of eternal damnation” confirms my statement that it is a state of being, rather than an act. As the previous half of the sentence says that such “hath never forgiveness” which is also a state of being, as opposed to never can get forgiveness.

As you are agreed that the shortcoming is not on God’s part for God is always willing to forgive; then in light of this topic of “who or what causes the evil”; I think it should be evident and agreed that it is the transgressor with whom the cause sits.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/26/05 02:25 PM

John,

The problem is always with the sinner. But if the sinner reaches a point where he can no longer be reached by the grace of God, and becomes not only a curse to himself but a menace to others, God, for his good and for the good of others, removes his life.

"In the destruction of the old world by a flood of waters, God gave evidence that men had exceeded the bounds prescribed through His long-sufferance. And whenever a people, with a 'thus saith the Lord' to guide them, presume upon His mercy, and go decidedly counter to His will, despising all His warnings, they finally exceed the limits of grace. Then God interferes and vindicates the honor of His law. He represses the increase of unrighteousness, by blotting out the race who become indifferent to His law which had been made known to the inhabitants of the Noatic [world]. Thus the Lord reveals to the whole human family that it is possible to go so far in sin and disgraceful transgression of His law, that it becomes necessary for Him to limit human life, and interpose in His wrath to prevent their spoiling one another in continual disobedience and defiance of His law" {21MR 65.2}

How carefully God protects the rights of men! He has attached a penalty to wilful murder. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." (Gen. 9:6) If one murderer were permitted to go unpunished, he would by his evil influence and cruel violence subvert others. This would result in a condition of things similar to that which existed before the Flood. God must punish murderers. He gives life, and He will take life, if that life becomes a terror and a menace (MS 126, 1901). {1BC 1091.3}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/26/05 07:32 PM

quote:
There is not a commandment of the law that is not for the good and happiness of man, both in this life and in the life to come. In obedience to God's law, man is surrounded as with a hedge and kept from the evil. He who breaks down this divinely erected barrier at one point has destroyed its power to protect him; for he has opened a way by which the enemy can enter to waste and ruin. {MB 52.1}
God's laws were established as a protection for man. When man disregards these laws, he brings ruin upon Himself. The laws were not given to protect us from God, but from the enemy.

quote:
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, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. (GC 36)
Is is Satan who brings about ruin to those who disregard God's laws, which are given as a protective hedge.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/27/05 02:51 AM

Yes, that is the perspective, Tom.
Posted By: John H.

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/27/05 08:54 PM

Back on the first page of this topic, I asked Tom E.:
quote:
Tom, have you considered the fact that EGW stated time and again that God caused the Flood, in modern language so plain that none need miss it?
He answered,
quote:
Why would the fact that it is stated in modern language change anything? Isn't the fact the Bible says something sufficient?
I'd say No, sometimes the Bible isn't sufficient, when people have strayed so far off the path of truth that they no longer can discern what the Bible itself says. That's one of the reasons God sent EGW in these last days, to correct those who have made erroneous interpretations of what the Bible so clearly states.

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, in the excellent new book Here We Stand, quotes Ellen White on the subject, and together they put it like this (all emphasis mentioned below is SKP's):
"While upholding sola scripture, and thus referring to her works as the 'lesser light,' Ellen White herself described her twofold function in the church as follows: 'God has, in that Word [the Bible], promised to give visions in the "last days"; not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from the Bible truth' (Early Writings, p. 78, emphasis mine). The light God gave her, she explains, 'has been given to correct specious error and to specify what is truth' (Selected Messages, bk. 3, p. 32, emphasis mine). Notice that the writings of Ellen White are not to establish a new rule of faith apart from the Bible. Rather, they have been given the church to 'comfort' God's people (when they are in the right path), to 'correct' them (when they err from the truth), and to 'specify' what is truth (when they are not sure). With so many confusing, conflicting voices involved in Biblical interpretation, can anyone doubt the importance and urgency of the Spirit of Prophecy in the hermeneutical enterprise?"

-- Here We Stand, chapter "Current Discussions on Creation," p. 256, endnote 16.
So -- in cases where people have lost sight of what the Bible says and means, to where they even question whether or not God caused the Flood -- no, the Bible isn't enough. Such people need clearer statements from the Spirit of Prophecy that hopefully won't be misunderstood like the Bible has been.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/27/05 09:16 PM

I really can't agree it was Satan's power which caused the flood.

"The men of Noah's time, in their philosophy and worldly wisdom, thought God could not destroy the world with a flood, for the waters of the ocean could not be sufficient for this. But God made the philosophy and science of men foolishness when the time had fully come to execute his word. The inspired pen describes the earth as standing out of the water and in the water. God had his weapons concealed in the bowels of the earth to compass her destruction. And when the great men and the wise men had reasoned before the world of the impossibility of its destruction by water, and the fears of the people were quieted, and all regarded Noah's prophecy as the veriest delusion, and looked upon Noah as a crazy fanatic, God's time had come. He hid Noah and his family in the ark, and the rain began to descend, slowly at first; the jeers and scoffings did not cease for a time, but soon the waters from heaven united with the waters of the great deep; the waters under the earth burst through the earth's surface, and the windows of heaven were opened, and man with all his philosophy and so-called science, finds that he had not been able in his worldly wisdom to comprehend God. He found too late that his wisdom was foolishness; that the Lawgiver is greater than the laws of nature. The hand of omnipotence is at no loss for ways and means to accomplish his purposes. He could reach into the bowels of the earth and call forth his weapons, waters there concealed, to aid in the destruction of the corrupt inhabitants of the old world. But let us all bear in mind that those who perished in that awful judgment had an offer of escape.... As it was in the days of Noah so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. Water will never destroy the earth again, but the weapons of God are concealed in the bowels of the earth which he will draw forth to unite with the fire from heaven to accomplish his purpose in the destruction of all those who would not receive the message of warning and purify their souls in obeying the truth and being obedient to the laws of God." {ST, January 3, 1878}

"The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice."--Ms 5, 1876, pp. 1-3.

Besides, 1) Satan did not desire the antediluvians to die, but to live, to practice their abominations and continue their rebellion against the Ruler of heaven; and when the flood did come, 2) he feared for his own existence (PP 99, 100).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/28/05 08:25 AM

quote:
I'd say No, sometimes the Bible isn't sufficient, when people have strayed so far off the path of truth that they no longer can discern what the Bible itself says.
You are suggesting that if a person has strayed so far off the path of truth they no longer can discern what the Bible says, then the Bible isn't sufficient. I have a couple of questions.

1.Can you substantiate your suggestion? I checked the context of the snippet you quoted from Pipim (whom I studied with at the seminary, a very nice man) and didn't see anything in the context that even remotely suggests the idea you have suggested.

2.If one has strayed so far off the path of truth that they can no longer discern what the Bible says, wouldn't this suggest that such a person is no longer hearing the voice of the Lord? If a person cannot hear the voice of the Lord from Scripture, what makes you think such a one would hear His voice from the Spirit of Prophesy?

3.Are there any other circumstances where the Bible is insufficient, other than the one you suggested above?

4.I have suggested the principle that God presents Himself in inspiration as doing that which He permits. A number of examples of this are:
a. The destruction of Jerusulem.
b. Sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites.
c. Creating evil.
d. Causing the death of Christ.
e. The time of trouble that comes upon the wicked before Christ's coming.
f. The death of Saul.

Many others could be given. Given that God presents in this way in Scripture (as doing that which He permits), is there any reason to suppose that God would not also present Himself in this way in the Spirit of Prophesy?

If we say no, God does not present Himself in this way in the Spirit of Prophesy, then we have the question of why God would present Himself one way in Scripture and another way to Ellen White. If we say yes, then how do we know when God is speaking of that which He Himself does, and that which He prevents? What's the principle we use?

The principle I suggest is that when we've seen Christ, we've seen the Father. If we wish to understand the truth about God, the place to go is to Jesus Christ. In Him, we see the Father perfectly revealed.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/28/05 09:03 AM

In an earlier post, Restin mentioned some books which have been written about the flood, to which I responded:

"The Adventist Book Center has several very good books concerning the Noachan flood, from the SDA standpoint. And they are surprisingly scientific and well researched, amply able to stand up to evolutionary theories."

The books I have read about the flood point out that the flood began by water exploding from the depths of the ocean and rising to the atmosphere. A theory is that something like tectanic plate opened up and water went gushing up from the ocean to the atmosphere, which came back down to the earth as rain. Has anyone read something like this? (end of Restin's post and my response)

The books I have read about the flood, agree with EGW's description. It appears that God used natural means to cause the flood; He made use of water which was beneath the earth's crust the whole time, water He was aware of, but man wasn't.

Sin is far more destructive then most people recognize. Just look at the moon, for example. How did it get that way? Did God get angry at the moon and curse it? Or is it the result of sin upon God's creation?

There are black holes which ravage in the universe. Did God create these things as well? Or could this be the result of sin?

Stars are dying all the time. It's a bit much to suppose that God would have created stars that would die, had sin not come upon the scene. Every where in the universe, even among inatimate objects, we see death and destruction.

Now consider this earth. When sin entered, the whole of creation was affected. Paul tells us that creation groans. God did not create carnivores, yet after sin, few animals can feel safe, because death is just around the door. God did not create poisons, yet because of sin one must be careful what to eat.

Sin has a thousand ways to destroy us, and God is constantly at work protecting His children from disaster.

Given that all nature was affected by sin, if it were not for God's protective hand, we would all be destroyed. It is He who keeps the earth on its course, and sustains and controls the forces of nature.

Consider the earth's crust. Before the flood, there were tremendous amounts of water beneath it. God opened the earth's crust, and water came from beneath, and that's how the flood came about. This agrees with the Biblical description, that waters came from beneath, and with EGW's description. It also agrees with the theories of creation scientists.

There are two possibilities regarding the water beneath the earth's crust. One possibility is that God was sustaining the earth, keeping the pressures of these faults to open in tact, not allowing the powerful forces to erupt which would cause worldwide destruction. When His Spirit was persistently and finally rejected, for 120 years, God finally and sadly withdrew His protection, which caused the flood to occur. This idea agrees with God's character revealed elsewhere in inspiration, and agrees with the Bible record, which states that God repented that He had made man. No doubt God was stricken with inconsable grief that His children had so thoroughly rejected Him, that the only possible way to keep the race from instinction was to allow the flood to occur.

As the Spirit of Prophesy points out, the flood occured out of mercy. It was Satan's plan to destroy the race (always has been), and God counteracted Satan's plan by allowing the flood to occur, and providing an ark for salvation.

OK, back to the other possibility. That would be that the earth was in no danger at all, until God cam on the scene, and out of anger or whatever opened the earth's crust. In this view, God is the destructive force, and to be feared, rather than sin. In this view, God is not a protector or Savior, but rather a destroyer, one to be feared, who will wreak vengence upon those who would dare to act in defiance to His will.

Back to the first view. Assume the earth was in danger the whole time. This would be in accordance with God's character, and also inspiration, which reveals that God is constantly at work protecting us from the danger which sin imposes upon us.

If God were keeping the forces of the earth's crust in check, and then released His hand, what would this look like to one who was seeing this transpire in vision? This is the only way to see what happened in the flood, right? By vision? So God revealed what happened by a vision, and what would one see, whether Moses or EGW or whoever? One would simply see the earth opening up by the power of God, and the waters of the earth erupting and the flood occuring. The most natural way to describe such a scene would be as God destroying the world by a flood. How else would one describe it?

So the question boils down to whether, before God acted, was the earth in a position of peril, or one of safety? Did God as destroyer, or cease acting as protector?

I suggest that God was acting as proctector and sustainer, and is still acting in such a role today. It is our ignorance of what He does to protect us, and of His character, which causes us to view Him inaccurately.

quote:
We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan.(GC 36)
The same principle applies to nature. God not only protects us from the power of Satan, but also from the power of nature.

For example:

quote:
It is not by inherent power that year by year the earth yields its bounties and continues its march around the sun. The hand of the Infinite One is perpetually at work guiding this planet. It is God's power continually exercised that keeps the earth in position in its rotation. It is God who causes the sun to rise in the heavens. He opens the windows of heaven and gives rain. (MH 416)
Imagine what would happen if God were to withdraw His hand, even for a moment, from the earth. It would lose its position in rotation, and very likely instantly destroy all higher forms of life, and probably most lower forms as well. Maybe all life, who knows. Similarly if God withdraws His sustaining hand, draught results, and it is by God's hand that rain comes.

We are accustomed to viewing things in a wrong light, as if the blessing of nature just "happen" without God's intervention. But this is not the case. It is only by God's positive action that we live.

quote:
The mechanism of the human body cannot be fully understood; it presents mysteries that baffle the most intelligent. It is not as the result of a mechanism, which, once set in motion, continues its work, that the pulse beats and breath follows breath. In God we live and move and have our being. The beating heart, the throbbing pulse, every nerve and muscle in the living organism, is kept in order and activity by the power of an ever-present God. {MH 417.1}
There are two principles to keep in mind. One is that sin has a thousand ways to destroy us, from which God is constantly and graciously protecting us, which we should acknowledge and give thanks for. Secondly, not only does God protect us, but He sustains us and all nature.

If God removes His sustaining or protecting hand, terrible things happen. These are seen as things which God does, and in a sense, this is true. God did destroy the world by a flood. This cannot be denied. But what was His role? Was it one of removing His staying hand? Or was it one of He Himself causing peril and disaster where no danger would have existed had God just left well enough alone?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/28/05 02:51 PM

quote:
OK, back to the other possibility. That would be that the earth was in no danger at all, until God cam on the scene, and out of anger or whatever opened the earth's crust. In this view, God is the destructive force, and to be feared, rather than sin. In this view, God is not a protector or Savior, but rather a destroyer, one to be feared, who will wreak vengence upon those who would dare to act in defiance to His will.
What I don’t understand is why you can’t see God as an active agent in removing life and at the same time merciful.
God suffered beyond what any language can express as He saw men whom He had created and for whom He would give His life, destroying themselves and inflicting pain to one another, sunk in such immorality and cruelty that they had become worse than brute beasts. God gave them 120 years of opportunity, but they mocked His offering of salvation. There was nothing more He could do to save them. If He allowed them to continue existing, they would continue to be a curse to themselves and a menace to others, and the knowledge of God would end up by being extinguished from the earth. He sent the flood in mercy, to put and end to the miserable existence of those creatures and to preserve His knowledge on earth.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/28/05 08:53 PM

R: What I don’t understand is why you can’t see God as an active agent in removing life and at the same time merciful.

Tom: What I don't understand is why you can't see God's protective and sustaining hand as necessary for the preservation of life. If God simply removes His hand, then death results. What's wrong with looking at things in this way?

Sin is a destructive force, which requires the hand of God to protect us. This is true in both the moral realm, and the natural realm. When His protection is refused, then ruin results.

R: God suffered beyond what any language can express as He saw men whom He had created and for whom He would give His life, destroying themselves and inflicting pain to one another, sunk in such immorality and cruelty that they had become worse than brute beasts. God gave them 120 years of opportunity, but they mocked His offering of salvation. There was nothing more He could do to save them. If He allowed them to continue existing, they would continue to be a curse to themselves and a menace to others, and the knowledge of God would end up by being extinguished from the earth. He sent the flood in mercy, to put and end to the miserable existence of those creatures and to preserve His knowledge on earth.

Tom: I agree with this. The only difference between our positions, as far as I can tell, is that I believe God was acting the whole time to prevent the earth from destruction. I pointed out the quote from the MH which shows that it is God who keeps the earth in its proper place. What would happen if God removed His guiding hand on our little orb? Life would be instantly destroyed, correct?

Inspiration tells us God has fixed the limits of how high bodies of water can come. What would happen if God were to remove those limits?

I gave many examples of how destructive sin is. Look at the moon. Look at black holes. Look at dying stars. Sin is an incredibly destructive force, both in the moral and natural realm. It is only the protecting and sustaining hand of God that allows us to live, both morally and naturally.

If God removes His hand, ruin results. Do you disagree with this? Is there any problem with what you think if you discovered that God removed His protecting hand, and this is what caused the waters of the deep to burst forth and cause the flood? Couldn't this as well be described as God causing the flood as if He opened the bowels of the earth Himself, assuming everything would have been just fine had God not acted to destroy?

quote:
Satan's power over the human agents is great to destroy. The Lord in his great mercy is a restorer, the very opposite of Satan.(1888 Mat. 1145)
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/29/05 04:24 PM

quote:
The only difference between our positions, as far as I can tell, is that I believe God was acting the whole time to prevent the earth from destruction.
This couldn’t explain all the situations. Let’s examine the case of the Egyptians, who were also drowned.

“Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Stretch out your hand over the sea, that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.' So Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its wonted flow when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled into it, and the LORD routed the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not so much as one of them remained” (Ex. 14:26-28).

God commanded Moses to close the sea. This couldn’t be described as God permitting the Egyptians to be drowned.

quote:
Is there any problem with what you think if you discovered that God removed His protecting hand, and this is what caused the waters of the deep to burst forth and cause the flood?
I just can’t see how God’s removing His protecting hand would be any better than God directly removing life. In which way is opening the floodgates of a dam worse than removing the reinforcement system of the dam, causing it to break?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/30/05 06:28 AM

quote:
Is there any problem with what you think if you discovered that God removed His protecting hand, and this is what caused the waters of the deep to burst forth and cause the flood?
R:I just can’t see how God’s removing His protecting hand would be any better than God directly removing life. In which way is opening the floodgates of a dam worse than removing the reinforcement system of the dam, causing it to break?

Tom: This is a great question, worthy of a topic I think. I believe this makes a huge difference, and is a vital point to understand.

I take it from your response that you do not reject the idea that what I suggested is possible, but you don't see what difference it would make. If I understanding that correctly?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/30/05 05:30 PM

Letting someone die may be more cruel than killing.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/30/05 08:34 PM

quote:
Letting someone die may be more cruel than killing.
An interesting comment. A bit cryptic, however. I'll try to flesh it out.

Ok, one way of taking this would be to say that God is cruel, no matter how you slice it. So even if one were to accept the premise that God was not being cruel by actively destroying those who oppose Him, He is still being cruel, perhapse even more cruel, by permitting them to die.

Another possibility. It would have been more cruel of God to have permitted them to die than to actually kill them because that would have taken longer.

I think the point you're wanting to make in the comment is that God would be no less cruel under the hypothesis that He permitted those who oppose Him to die by withdrawing His protecting and sustaining hand rather than by actually killing them. Is that correct?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/30/05 08:40 PM

quote:
This couldn’t explain all the situations. Let’s examine the case of the Egyptians, who were also drowned.

“Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Stretch out your hand over the sea, that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.' So Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its wonted flow when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled into it, and the LORD routed the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not so much as one of them remained” (Ex. 14:26-28).

God commanded Moses to close the sea. This couldn’t be described as God permitting the Egyptians to be drowned.

This to me seems to be exactly the same principle. God just made plain what He is always doing. God is always protecting us against forces which would destroy us, such as the Red Sea in the case of the Egyptians. God was keeping this deadly force at bay. He did it for those who were willing to respond to His Spirit. For those who refused His protection, He removed it, and the result was that they were destroyed.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 03:23 AM

No, because both the opening and the closing of the sea were artificial and arbitrary acts.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 03:26 AM

quote:
I think the point you're wanting to make in the comment is that God would be no less cruel under the hypothesis that He permitted those who oppose Him to die by withdrawing His protecting and sustaining hand rather than by actually killing them. Is that correct?
God is not cruel, but if you think that killing is always cruel, then letting die would be no less cruel.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 07:45 AM

I asked you this question:

quote:
I take it from your response that you do not reject the idea that what I suggested is possible, but you don't see what difference it would make. If I understanding that correctly?
I would like to know if I'm understanding you correctly on this point (which is, the flood could have been caused by God's removing His protecting hand from the earth's crust, which allowed the waters that were there the whole time to erupt)
-------------------------------------------------

(Regarding the Egyptian's drowing in the Red Sea)

R: No, because both the opening and the closing of the sea were artificial and arbitrary acts.

Tom: First of all, God is not arbitrary. Nothing God does is arbitrary. So the act was certainly not arbitrary.

Secondly, you write the act was artificial. If this act is "artificial" then so is every other act of God which protects us from the forces of nature. All the time God is "artificially" preventing us from being destroyed. We are just ignorant of what He is "artificially" doing.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 07:51 AM

Old Tom:I think the point you're wanting to make in the comment is that God would be no less cruel under the hypothesis that He permitted those who oppose Him to die by withdrawing His protecting and sustaining hand rather than by actually killing them. Is that correct?

R:God is not cruel, but if you think that killing is always cruel, then letting die would be no less cruel.

Tom:I'm not following your train of thought. I have been arguing that

1)Force is not a principle of God's government, but rather a principle of Satan's government.
2)God does not destroy. He is the restorer;Satan is the destroyer.
3)Sin is a destructive force, from which God protects us, both in the natural and moral realm.
4)The laws of nature are not self-acting. God's sustaining hand is necessary to keep things working correctly.
5)When God is rejected, and He chooses to remove His sustaining and protecitve hand, ruin results.

I don't know how what you're talking about ties into these points. Perhaps I made some other point to which you are responding, but if this is the case, I don't know what it is. Or if it is to one of the above points, I also don't know how you point ties in.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 02:25 PM

quote:
Nothing God does is arbitrary.
What is the basis for saying that?
I’m using “arbitrary” in the sense of “based on or subject to individual judgment or preference”. It was God’s judgment and preference which determined the opening and closing of the Red Sea, in the same way that it was His judgment and preference which determined the opening and closing of the Jordan River, or which determined the sun to stand still at Gibeon and the sun to turn back ten steps on the dial of Ahaz. God was not “protecting” the israelites from the normal course of the Red Sea or of the Jordan River, or from the normal course of the heavenly bodies. Human beings need protection when nature goes out of control, not when it’s following its normal course. The sea represented a difficulty to them at the moment, because they didn’t have ships, but not a threat; and God resolved the difficulty by arbitrarily doing something contrary to the normal course of nature.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 02:37 PM

You are making some pressupositions here with which I do not agree:

1)That God never destroys and this is a principle of His government
2)That killing is always bad and cruel
3)That killing is always an act of force
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 05:32 PM

quote:
I would like to know if I'm understanding you correctly on this point (which is, the flood could have been caused by God's removing His protecting hand from the earth's crust, which allowed the waters that were there the whole time to erupt)
Sorry, I had forgotten to answer this.
Before sin entered the universe, God already kept the heavenly bodies in their orbits, and it is He who upholds nature not only in our planet but also in unfallen planets. Of course in our planet nature was affected by sin, and this can be seen everywhere, but I see no concrete evidence in inspiration that God is supernaturally protecting earth’s inhabitants from the forces of nature, otherwise these would destroy them. I see no evidence that, if it wasn’t for God’s protecting hand, the water beneath earth’s crust would have destroyed the planet just after sin, and God had been restraining these waters for 2000 years before finally removing His restriction.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 09:02 PM

quote:
You are making some pressupositions here with which I do not agree:

1)That God never destroys and this is a principle of His government
2)That killing is always bad and cruel
3)That killing is always an act of force

I agree that I have been arguing the first part of the first item is true. I'm not aware that I have been arguing, or presupposing, 2) or 3). Actually, I would agree that killing is bad, as defined in the commandmant "Thou shalt not kill," but I'm not aware that I have been arguing that killing is always cruel nor that it is an act of force. This isn't to say that I necessarily disagree with this assertion, just that I'm not aware of having been arguing from these presuppositions.

To put it another way, I don't think any of the arguments I have been presenting would be lessened to any degree if one accepted the principle that killing is not necessarily always cruel or an act of force.

I am curious, however, as to how you would see killing occuring not as an act of force. The only thing that pops to my mind would be in the sense of permitting some destructive act to occur. Is this what you had in mind? Or something else?

Regarding the first part of the first item, that God never destroys,

quote:
"God destroys no one." Testimonies for the Church, 5:120.
quote:
"Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. Testimonies for the Church, 6:388, 389.
quote:
"This earth has almost reached the place where God will permit the destroyer to work his will upon it." Testimonies for the Church, 7:141.
quote:
"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." The Ministry of Healing, 113.
These seem to establish the point that God is not the destroyer, but rather Satan, and that destruction comes when God permits Satan to do His destructive work.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 09:15 PM

R:I see no concrete evidence in inspiration that God is supernaturally protecting earth’s inhabitants from the forces of nature, otherwise these would destroy them.

The evidence I cited was from MH 416.

quote:
God is constantly employed in upholding and using as His servants the things that He has made. He works through the laws of nature, using them as His instruments. They are not self-acting. Nature in her work testifies of the intelligent presence and active agency of a Being who moves in all things according to His will....It is not by inherent power that year by year the earth yields its bounties and continues its march around the sun. The hand of the Infinite One is perpetually at work guiding this planet. It is God's power continually exercised that keeps the earth in position in its rotation. It is God who causes the sun to rise in the heavens. He opens the windows of heaven and gives rain.
It should be clear that if God were to relax to the smallest degree in His work, that we would be destroyed. I take it that this suffices to demonstrate the sustaining portion of my comment. Now as to the protective.

quote:
We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one.(GC 266)
That this involves natural disasters is made evident by the following:

quote:
Satan works through the elements also to garner his harvest of unprepared souls. He has studied the secrets of the laboratories of nature, and he uses all his power to control the elements as far as God allows. When he was suffered to afflict Job, how quickly flocks and herds, servants, houses, children, were swept away, one trouble succeeding another as in a moment. It is God that shields His creatures and hedges them in from the power of the destroyer.(GC 589)
I mentioned in previous posts the existence of black holes, dying stars, the barren moon as evidence of the destructive power of sin in the natural realm. Given that such destructive power exists, it stands to reason that God is protecting us from this power when it doesn't affect us. Sin is a very powerful destructive force; it is not benign. We should be thankful to God for the protection He offers us from it.

quote:
I see no evidence that, if it wasn’t for God’s protecting hand, the water beneath earth’s crust would have destroyed the planet just after sin, and God had been restraining these waters for 2000 years before finally removing His restriction.
I wasn't asking if you saw evidence for it. I was asking if you agreed that it was possible. To be specific, is it possible that there were forces which would have opened the earth's crust, setting into motion events which would cause the flood? We know that all creation groans, and has been greatly affected by sin, to the extent that there are carnivores, poisons, earthquakes, valcanos, tsunamis and many other things which God did not create.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 10:56 PM

Old Tom:Nothing God does is arbitrary.

R:What is the basis for saying that?

Tom:Because God is not arbitrary.

quote:
God loves His creatures with a love that is both tender and strong. He has established the laws of nature, but His laws are not arbitrary exactions. Every "thou shalt not," whether in physical or moral law, contains or implies a promise. If it is obeyed, blessings will attend our steps; if it is disobeyed, the result is danger and unhappiness. The laws of God are designed to bring His people closer to Himself. He will save them from the evil and lead them to the good if they will be led, but force them He never will. (AG 266)

From the beginning it has been Satan's studied plan to cause men to forget God, that he might secure them to himself. Therefore he has sought to misrepresent the character of God, to lead men to cherish a false conception of Him. The Creator has been presented to their minds as clothed with the attributes of the prince of evil himself--as arbitrary, severe, and unforgiving--that He might be feared, shunned, and even hated by men. (In Heavenly Places, page 8)

But strange fire has been offered in the use of harsh words, in self-importance, in self-exaltation, in
self-righteousness, in arbitrary authority, in domineering, in oppression, in restricting the liberty of God's people, binding them about by your plans and rules, which God has not framed, neither have they come into His mind. All these things are strange fire, unacknowledged by God, and are a continual misrepresentation of His character. (TM 357)

Many conceive of the Christian's God as a being whose attribute is stern justice,--one who is a severe judge, a harsh, exacting creditor. The Creator has been pictured as a being who is watching with jealous eye to discern the errors and mistakes of men, that He may visit judgment upon them. In the minds of thousands, love and sympathy and tenderness are associated with the character of Christ, while God is regarded as the law-giver, inflexible, arbitrary, devoid of sympathy for the beings He has made. (Bible Training School, November 1, 1908)

When the earth was repeopled, men again lost the fear of God out of their hearts. Satan worked to array them against God. Thus he was seeking to gain full possession of the earth. He misinterpreted the character of God, and charged him with the very attributes that he himself possessed, while he concealed his own character from them. He professed to be their best friend, one who was working so that God's arbitrary power should not bring them into abject slavery. Through fallen man he renewed his hostilities to God, and triumphed in the very face of Heaven. (RH 8/14/00)

Satan works to make God appear arbitrary, but He isn't. He follows the principles of His government, which is the outworking of His character. Everything He does is for the good of His creatures.
Posted By: Claudia Thompson

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 11:23 PM

To me this entire thing seems silly, being that God uses and will use His DESTROYING ANGELS to destroy sinners...

Ezekiel 9:
1: He cried also in mine ears with a loud voice, saying, Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, even every man with his destroying weapon in his hand.
2: And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar.
3: And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;
4: And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
5: And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
7: And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
8: And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?
9: Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not.
10: And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.
11: And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me.
Posted By: Claudia Thompson

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 08/31/05 11:39 PM

WHO DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO BE DOING THIS DESTRUCTION?

Rv:20:9: And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Rv:20:10: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


From "Modern Revivals" in Great Controversy:
"Affiliated to the dangers already named is the danger of underestimating the justice of God. The tendency of the modern pulpit is to strain out the divine justice from the divine benevolence, to sink benevolence into a sentiment rather than exalt it into a principle. The new theological prism puts asunder what God has joined together. Is the divine law a good or an evil? It is a good. Then justice is good; for it is a disposition to execute the law. From the habit of underrating the divine law and justice, the extent and demerit of human disobedience, men easily slide into the habit of underestimating the grace which has provided an atonement for sin." Thus the gospel loses its value and importance in the minds of men, and soon they are ready practically to cast aside the Bible itself. "
Posted By: Claudia Thompson

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/01/05 12:23 AM

Tom Ewall,

I think that you ought to take the time to read this:

http://www.sdadefend.com/Terrible-storm/Terrible%20Storm%201.htm

It isnt very long really and I think that it might be of help to you.


Claudia
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/01/05 12:55 AM

quote:
To me this entire thing seems silly, being that God uses and will use His DESTROYING ANGELS to destroy sinners...
I don't think it's silly at all. I'm glad that others, pariticulary Rosangela, have been willing to dialog on this. There's nothing I can think of more important than understanding God's character.

The Great Controversy arose over God's character. The enemy has presented Him as harsh, unforgiving, stern and arbitrary. He (the enemy) is seeking to deceive men by investing his own evil characteristics to God.

The whole purpose of Christ's mission was to reveal the Father, in order to set us right with Him.

It's very important that we understand God's character, the nature of sin, and the issues involved in the Great Controversy.

One way of looking at things sees sin as a hideous thing which will destroy all those who become involved in it. This destruction occurs because those who give themselves over to it cut themselves off from God. They voluntarily choose not to have anything to do with God, which, of course, leads to their death, since God alone is the source of life. God is constantly at work to draw us to Himself, whereby we may be healed, and to warn us from the folly of rejecting the principles of His government.

Another way of looking at things sees God working along different lines. The difference in looking at these things is what we have been pursuing in these threads.
Posted By: Charity

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/02/05 01:57 AM

Doesn't Claudia have a valid point Tom? If the law is good, justice is also good. The distruction of sin and those who love sin more than God is just.

David said he hated the wicked with a perfect hatred. Was that an evil thought or an inspired thought? He counted himself an enemy of those who were enemies of God and a friend of those who were friends. Was that misguided? In my view David, a man after God's own heart, a man with a character similar to God's, expresses the balance very well in many of the Psalms between mercy and justice. How does what you are saying square with what David says about God and His character? I do not mean to put you on the defensive. I would just like to know what you think of some of the more passionate passages where David calls out to God to take up his cause and judge his persecutors.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/02/05 03:22 AM

Claudia: Who do you think is going to be doing this destruction?

Rv:20:9: And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Rv:20:10: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Tom: Thank you for your input Claudia.

It's a bit ironic that Rev. 20:10 is THE proof text used by those who believe that hell is eternal. They argue that this is after all, what the text says. We argue that Scripture must be interpreted as a whole, and taking all of Scripture into consideration, that hell is not eternal, even though here it is.

The ironic thing is that the same arguments they use are being used here, and the answer to the argument is the same.

From The Desire of Ages we read:

quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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.
This brings out:
1)The destruction of the wicked is not an arbitrary act of power from God, but rather something the wicked cause themselves.
2)The reap what they have sown.
3)They cut themselves off from life.
4)The glory of God, who is love, destroys them.

In DA 108 she writes that "the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked."

In COL 84 she writes,

quote:
God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself.
Taking into account the above, it seems clear the answer to your question is that it is the wicked themselves who cause their destruction.

I'll respond to the GC Modern Revivals quote in the response to Mark's post.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/02/05 03:44 AM

Mark: Doesn't Claudia have a valid point Tom? If the law is good, justice is also good.

Tom: I'm certainly in favor of justice. However, there is a difference between God's justice and man's justice. Man's idea of justice is eye for eye and tooth for tooth. It's based on retribution. However, God's idea of justice is based on love, mercy and compassion.

quote:
18 Therefore the LORD will wait, that He may be gracious to you;And therefore He will be exalted, that He may have mercy on you.
For the LORD is a God of justice;
Blessed are all those who wait for Him.(Isa. 30:18)

God is a God of justice. Therefore He longs to be gracious to us.

quote:
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.(Zech. 7:9)
This is God's idea of justice -- showing mercy and compassion.

The Great Controversy brings out that God exercises mercy and compassion in the judgement of the wicked. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God. God allows the wicked their choice of death, and this is just.

Mark: The distruction of sin and those who love sin more than God is just.

Tom: Yes, this is true. However, the wicked do not die to some arbitrary action on God's part, but because they themselves choose to cut themselves off from life. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked.

Note that God does not change, but it is the response of the wicked to God that causes their destruction. God does the same thing to them which gives life to the righteous; He reveals His wonderfulness.

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.(DA 764)
Mark: David said he hated the wicked with a perfect hatred. Was that an evil thought or an inspired thought?

Tom: Here's what Jesus said:

quote:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shall love thy neighbor, and hate your enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.(Matthew 5:43-48)
Jesus Christ was THE revelation of God's character. "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son" (Testimonies for the Church, 8:286).

Mark: He counted himself an enemy of those who were enemies of God and a friend of those who were friends. Was that misguided? In my view David, a man after God's own heart, a man with a character similar to God's, expresses the balance very well in many of the Psalms between mercy and justice. How does what you are saying square with what David says about God and His character? I do not mean to put you on the defensive. I would just like to know what you think of some of the more passionate passages where David calls out to God to take up his cause and judge his persecutors.

Tom: I think Jesus Christ had a better understanding of God's character than David did. All that man needs to know of God, or can know of God, was revealed by Him.

I think Jesus Christ must be our starting place, our ending place, and our resting place for understanding God's character. All other revelation must be understood in the light of that glorious revelation. He was the Word of God, God's thought made audible. All other light pales compared to that light.

Regarding David's attitude, I think God is patient, and takes into account where we are in our walk with Him. David was a man of God, a man after God's own heart, as you point out. He also had a godly hatred of sin, and a godly love for righteousness.

However, it is Jesus Christ who is the ultimate revelation of God's character, and He taught us to love our enemies. He taught us, and showed us, that this is exactly what God does, even to the point of death, the death of the cross; even when that means not ever being resurrected (while in the throes of the misery of the cross, hope did not present the resurrection to Christ -- He felt His separation with His Father would be eternal).

I hope this adequately addresses your quesitons. If not, please follow up.

Thanks for your input!
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/02/05 04:52 PM

quote:
I am curious, however, as to how you would see killing occuring not as an act of force. The only thing that pops to my mind would be in the sense of permitting some destructive act to occur. Is this what you had in mind? Or something else?
When we kill our pets that are suffering too much would this be an act of force? Or of compassion?

quote:
"God destroys no one." Testimonies for the Church, 5:120.
The passage says, “God destroys no one. The sinner destroys himself by his own impenitence.” The clear meaning of the passage is that God is not responsible for the destruction of anyone, but the sinner is responsible for his own destruction.

quote:
Satan is the destroyer.
Satan is pleased to destroy. Of course God does not take pleasure in destroying. That’s why His destroying sinners is called His “strange act”.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/02/05 04:54 PM

quote:
To be specific, is it possible that there were forces which would have opened the earth's crust, setting into motion events which would cause the flood?
I don’t think it is impossible, but I also don’t think it is probable. Anyway, does it make any difference? EGW says that the flood occurred “to accomplish his [God’s] purposes” (ST, January 3, 1878). “His purposes” were “the destruction of the corrupt inhabitants of the old world” (Ibidem).
Now, I don’t think that it would make any difference if God had removed His protection or if He had “call[ed] forth His weapons to aid” (Ibidem) in this purpose; the purpose was the same – the death of those people, which was the only way to prevent sin from becoming an unchecked destructive force.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/02/05 04:57 PM

quote:
Tom:Because God is not arbitrary.
I’ve explained that I’m not using the word “arbitrary” in the sense of “despotic”, but in the sense of “based on or subject to individual judgment or preference”.
If you don’t want to recognize this meaning of the word, just forget the word (I didn’ find any other which would fit here).
The fact is, it wasn’t Satan who killed the Egyptians, because it was God who commanded Moses to close the sea, and of course Moses opened and closed the sea by God’s power. It wasn’t nature which killed the Egyptians, but an alteration in the normal course of nature made by God Himself. So, who killed the Egyptians?

“The Egyptians dared to venture in the path God had prepared for his people, and angels of God went through their host and removed their chariot wheels. They were plagued. Their progress was very slow, and they began to be troubled. They remembered the judgments that the God of the Hebrews had brought upon them in Egypt, to compel them to let Israel go, and they thought that God might deliver them all into the hands of the Israelites. They decided that God was fighting for the Israelites, and they were terribly afraid, and were turning about to flee from them, when ‘the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them. But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. Thus the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore. And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians; and the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses.’” {1SP 209.2}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/03/05 12:11 AM

Old Tom:To be specific, is it possible that there were forces which would have opened the earth's crust, setting into motion events which would cause the flood?

R:I don’t think it is impossible, but I also don’t think it is probable.

Tom:Thank you! That's the impression I was getting from your answers.

R:Anyway, does it make any difference?

Tom:Yes, it makes a very big difference. The purpose of the other thread ("Does it make any difference?") was to discuss these differences. I wrote a long post addressing this very question which you asked on that thread which has the date/time on my computer of August 30, 2005 10:00 AM (which I suspect will be a bit different on yours; but it's the third post in that thread, the first long one).

This was the conclusion:

quote:

So the general principles are:

1.Sin is a destructive force which requires positive action on God's part for us to be protected.
2.God must sustain us, our planet, the laws of nature, in order for things to function correctly.

So if God withdraws His protective or sustaining hand, then bad things happen. As to why it is different for ruin to occur as a result of God withdrawing His sustaining and protecting hand vs. His actually causing the ruin, in the one case, none of the principles of His government are violated, but in the other they are.

R:EGW says that the flood occurred “to accomplish his [God’s] purposes” (ST, January 3, 1878). “His purposes” were “the destruction of the corrupt inhabitants of the old world” (Ibidem).
Now, I don’t think that it would make any difference if God had removed His protection or if He had “call[ed] forth His weapons to aid” (Ibidem) in this purpose; the purpose was the same – the death of those people, which was the only way to prevent sin from becoming an unchecked destructive force.

Tom:It makes a difference because their are other principles involved, such as:
1)God is not the destroyer. Satan is the destroyer. God is the restorer.
2)Satan is attempting to deceive us by investing the Creator with his own attributes (e.g. being a destroyer).
3)All that man needs to know about God, or can know about God, has been revealed in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ never killed anybody, or in any way harmed anybody. When rejected, He simply departed.
4)Force is not a principle of God's government. Compelling force is found only under Satan's government.
5)Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power.

Under the interpretation I am suggesting, none of these principles are violated. Under the idea that God actively caused these things to happen, by voluntarily directing His own power in a destructive way, they all are.

Let me turn your question around on yourself and ask, if you do not feel it makes any difference, then why not just accept the interpretation I am suggesting? The fact that you argue so strenuously for the other interpretation suggests that you DO feel it makes a difference.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/03/05 12:23 AM

Old Tom:Because God is not arbitrary.

R:I’ve explained that I’m not using the word “arbitrary” in the sense of “despotic”, but in the sense of “based on or subject to individual judgment or preference”.

If you don’t want to recognize this meaning of the word, just forget the word (I didn’ find any other which would fit here).

Tom:I agree with your use of the word, which is its standard usage. I was using it the same way. God, using this definition of the term, is not arbitrary.

The Spirit of Prophesy uses the word in the same way. If you look through her writings, I would be very surprised (shocked, in fact) if you see her ever use the word arbitrary in conjunction with God. She even argues that it is Satan's purpose to show that God is arbitrary. This would seem to me to be sufficient to establish the point that He is not.

R:The fact is, it wasn’t Satan who killed the Egyptians, because it was God who commanded Moses to close the sea, and of course Moses opened and closed the sea by God’s power. It wasn’t nature which killed the Egyptians, but an alteration in the normal course of nature made by God Himself. So, who killed the Egyptians?

Tom:Addressing this very point, according to EGW it was not God:

quote:
God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself. Everyone who stifles the admonitions of conscience is sowing the seeds of unbelief, and these will produce a sure harvest. By rejecting the first warning from God, Pharaoh of old sowed the seeds of obstinacy, and he reaped obstinacy. God did not compel him to disbelieve. The seed of unbelief which he sowed produced a harvest of its kind. Thus his resistance continued, until he looked upon his devastated land, upon the cold, dead form of his first-born, and the first-born of all in his house and of all the families in his kingdom, until the waters of the sea closed over his horses and his chariots and his men of war. (COL 84, 85)
The same exact principles were at work which are always at work. God just made them obvious, so all can see.

It is always by God's power that nature functions. It is not self-acting. There is no "normal" course of nature which doesn't involve God's sustaining and protective power. The Egyptians were killed when God withdrew His protection from the destructive forces from which He was protecting those who had not rejected Him. There's no difference in principle between this and any other episode in which those who have rejected God's grace are destroyed, including at the end of time.

It makes sense that this should be the case, because God is the same yesterday, today and forever. There is no difference between God's actions on the Red Sea, at the end of time, and on the cross. It's one God, who acts the same way, all the time. He goes about doing good. When He is rejected, He departs. This results in the ruin of those who reject Him.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/03/05 12:44 AM

quote:
The fact that you argue so strenuously for the other interpretation suggests that you DO feel it makes a difference.
Can I be honest? Yes, I do feel it makes a difference - for worse.
I can accept a God who tells me, "I will take your life because you proved unworthy of it." I can't accept a God who tells me, "I'm sorry, but I will have to let you die." The first seems honest to me. The second seems cowardly.
So the position you are proposing at best is no better than the other; at worst it is worse.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/03/05 01:04 AM

quote:
Addressing this very point, according to EGW it was not God:
EGW is speaking about the responsibility for what happened.
Who killed the Egyptians? They themselves? Of course in a sense yes - they were responsible for their death; but they did not cause their own death. It was caused by the sea, and the sea was directly controlled by God. He could have waited for the Egyptians either to cross it or to go back (which EGW makes clear they had already begun to do). So the conclusion is inescapable that God killed the Egyptians.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/03/05 04:04 AM

quote:
I can accept a God who tells me, "I will take your life because you proved unworthy of it."
I'm overwhelmed by a God who tells me, "Because you are unworthy, I will give you my life."
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/03/05 04:47 AM

Old Tom:Addressing this very point, according to EGW it was not God:

R:EGW is speaking about the responsibility for what happened.

Tom:On what basis do you make this assertion? There's nothing in the text that suggests that she is dealing merely with responsibility. She says God destroys no one; they destroy themselves by rejecting God. She doesn't say, "God is not responsible for destroying anyone" (which of course is true) but "God destroys no man."

R:Who killed the Egyptians? They themselves?

Tom:Yes! That what she says:

quote:
God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself. Everyone who stifles the admonitions of conscience is sowing the seeds of unbelief, and these will produce a sure harvest. By rejecting the first warning from God, Pharaoh of old sowed the seeds of obstinacy, and he reaped obstinacy. God did not compel him to disbelieve. The seed of unbelief which he sowed produced a harvest of its kind. Thus his resistance continued, until he looked upon his devastated land, upon the cold, dead form of his first-born, and the first-born of all in his house and of all the families in his kingdom, until the waters of the sea closed over his horses and his chariots and his men of war. (COL 84, 85)
According to this quote, it was Pharoh's unbelief which caused his death. It was his unbelief that sowed the harvest which he reaped.

In commenting on this text I wrote:

quote:
The same exact principles were at work which are always at work. God just made them obvious, so all can see.

It is always by God's power that nature functions. It is not self-acting. There is no "normal" course of nature which doesn't involve God's sustaining and protective power. The Egyptians were killed when God withdrew His protection from the destructive forces from which He was protecting those who had not rejected Him. There's no difference in principle between this and any other episode in which those who have rejected God's grace are destroyed, including at the end of time.

It makes sense that this should be the case, because God is the same yesterday, today and forever. There is no difference between God's actions on the Red Sea, at the end of time, and on the cross. It's one God, who acts the same way, all the time. He goes about doing good. When He is rejected, He departs. This results in the ruin of those who reject Him.

R:Of course in a sense yes - they were responsible for their death; but they did not cause their own death. It was caused by the sea, and the sea was directly controlled by God. He could have waited for the Egyptians either to cross it or to go back (which EGW makes clear they had already begun to do). So the conclusion is inescapable that God killed the Egyptians.

Tom:How could God have waited for the Egyptians? They had rejected God's gracious offer to save them over and over and over again. They insisted they wanted nothing to do with God, so God left them to their choice. If God had waited, He would not have been respecting their freedom. It's just like in the destruction of Jerusalem.

quote:
We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest.(GC 37)
This is the same thing she wrote in COL regarding the Egyptians. The very same principles are at work. What happened in Jerusalem was not an exception, but the explanation of the principles at work whenever God is rejected. This is why the description of what happened with Pharaoh is so similar to the destruction of Jeruslem.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/03/05 05:05 AM

Pardon me for throwing one more in here (also, please let me know if I've missed any question or point you've made, as this is quite possible, given we have a number of conversations giong on).

I've been thinking about your claim that God is not responsible for the death of the Egyptians, even though you feel He was the cause. Yet the normal definition for "responsible" involves being the agent or cause of an event. So if God was the agent or cause of their death, then He would have had to have been responsible.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/03/05 08:25 PM

quote:
Tom:On what basis do you make this assertion? There's nothing in the text that suggests that she is dealing merely with responsibility.
By comparison with parallel texts:

“What Pharaoh has done, will be done again and again by men until the close of probation. God destroys no man; but when a man stifles conviction, when he turns from evidence, he is sowing unbelief, and will reap as he has sown. As it was with Pharaoh, so it will be with him; when clearer light shines upon the truth, he will meet it with increased resistance, and the work of hardening the heart will go on with each rejection of the increasing light of heaven. In simplicity and truth we would speak to the impenitent in regard to the way in which men destroy their own souls. You are not to say that God is to blame, that he has made a decree against you. No, he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth, and to the haven of eternal bliss. No soul is ever finally deserted of God, given up to his own ways, so long as there is any hope of his salvation. God follows men with appeals and warnings and assurances of compassion, until further opportunities and privileges would be wholly in vain. The responsibility rests upon the sinner. By resisting the Spirit of God today, he prepares the way for a second resistance of light when it comes with mightier power; and thus he will pass from one stage of indifference to another, until, at last, the light will fail to impress him, and he will cease to respond in any measure to the Spirit of God.” {RH, February 17, 1891 par. 2}

quote:
Tom:How could God have waited for the Egyptians? They had rejected God's gracious offer to save them over and over and over again. They insisted they wanted nothing to do with God, so God left them to their choice. If God had waited, He would not have been respecting their freedom.
Tom, please! If destroying was against God’s principles He sure could have waited for the Egyptians to go back. They died as a result of a direct act of His power (both the opening and the closing of the sea were direct acts of God's power).

quote:
I've been thinking about your claim that God is not responsible for the death of the Egyptians, even though you feel He was the cause. Yet the normal definition for "responsible" involves being the agent or cause of an event. So if God was the agent or cause of their death, then He would have had to have been responsible.
If I’m driving and you jump in front of my car (or train), I caused your death, but you are responsible for your own death.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/04/05 05:12 AM

Tom:On what basis do you make this assertion? There's nothing in the text that suggests that she is dealing merely with responsibility.

R:By comparison with parallel texts:

“What Pharaoh has done, will be done again and again by men until the close of probation. God destroys no man; but when a man stifles conviction, when he turns from evidence, he is sowing unbelief, and will reap as he has sown. As it was with Pharaoh, so it will be with him; when clearer light shines upon the truth, he will meet it with increased resistance, and the work of hardening the heart will go on with each rejection of the increasing light of heaven. In simplicity and truth we would speak to the impenitent in regard to the way in which men destroy their own souls. You are not to say that God is to blame, that he has made a decree against you. No, he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth, and to the haven of eternal bliss. No soul is ever finally deserted of God, given up to his own ways, so long as there is any hope of his salvation. God follows men with appeals and warnings and assurances of compassion, until further opportunities and privileges would be wholly in vain. The responsibility rests upon the sinner. By resisting the Spirit of God today, he prepares the way for a second resistance of light when it comes with mightier power; and thus he will pass from one stage of indifference to another, until, at last, the light will fail to impress him, and he will cease to respond in any measure to the Spirit of God.” {RH, February 17, 1891 par. 2}

Tom:This passage points out that we are not to say that God is to blame, that God has made a decree. Doesn't this mean that God is not to blame, and has not made a decree? If God were to blame, and had made a decree, then He would be to blame. But what has done? He has warned time and time again about what the result of rejecting His Spirit would be:the wicked would reap what they have sown.

The only way to think that the wicked's reaping what they have sown has nothing to do with God's withdrawing His Spirit, is to think that God is not doing anything to protect the wicked.

You think the wicked are in no danger until God does something to put them there. But the reality is that we all are in danger all the time, both to the forces of nature and the forces of evil, and it is God's sustaning and protective care which saves us. It makes no sense to that we are not to say that God is to blame nor that He has made a decree against the sinner if that's exactly what He's done! However, if the wicked really are to blame, like God says they are, and God really doesn't destroy anyone like He says He doesn't, then it does make sense.


Old Tom:How could God have waited for the Egyptians? They had rejected God's gracious offer to save them over and over and over again. They insisted they wanted nothing to do with God, so God left them to their choice. If God had waited, He would not have been respecting their freedom.

R: Tom, please! If destroying was against God’s principles He sure could have waited for the Egyptians to go back. They died as a result of a direct act of His power (both the opening and the closing of the sea were direct acts of God's power).

Tom:Rosangela, por favor! No, God couldn't have waited, because that would have been violating their freedom of choice. They made it clear they wanted nothing to do with God, and God honored their choice. This is always how anyone who is destroyed is destroyed. There's no difference between what happened to the Egyptians and what happened to the Israelites who were destroyed in Jerusalem, which is why God uses the same language to describe both events.

In both places active language is used by inspiration, saying that God caused the destruction which occured. In both places the Spirit of Prophesy makes clear that God is not responsible for the destruction which occured, but that the wicked reaped the result of their own choice.

If we refuse God's protection, we will be destroyed. We really do owe our existence to God's loving care and protection.

Old Tom:I've been thinking about your claim that God is not responsible for the death of the Egyptians, even though you feel He was the cause. Yet the normal definition for "responsible" involves being the agent or cause of an event. So if God was the agent or cause of their death, then He would have had to have been responsible.

R:If I’m driving and you jump in front of my car (or train), I caused your death, but you are responsible for your own death.

Tom:In your example, I see the forces of nature from which God is always protecting us as the car. I see jumping in front of the car as the action of rejecting God's protection.

God is constantly at work protecting us from the forces of nature and the forces of evil. If we refuse His protection, those forces will kill us.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/04/05 10:19 PM

Tom,

Please notice in the text that Ellen White is speaking about the destruction of the soul, not of the destruction of the body.
God has made no decree for the perdition of the sinner. If the sinner is lost, he is the only one to blame for this.

quote:
You think the wicked are in no danger until God does something to put them there.
I’ve never said that. We know very little about this subject to determine exactly when and why and in what ways God protects or refrains from protecting people. What I don’t see evidence for saying is that God protects us from nature. What Ellen White says is that God protects from Satan’s destructive manipulation of nature, imposing a limit to him.

quote:
No, God couldn't have waited, because that would have been violating their freedom of choice. They made it clear they wanted nothing to do with God, and God honored their choice.
What I don’t understand is how you think this explanation shows a good picture of God.
Let’s return to that comparison I’ve created. Suppose the mayor of a city whose dam was not in good conditions builds a reinforcement system. One day, however, the people of that city say to him, “Go away, we don’t want you here and we don’t want your protection. Remove the reinforcement system you built!” Then he goes away and, respecting the wish of the people (sigh), he removes the reinforcement system of the dam, knowing that it will break and and that the water will inundate the city and kill everyone. What do you think of a person like that? If you were the mayor, would you remove the reinforcement system?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/05/05 12:05 AM

R:Please notice in the text that Ellen White is speaking about the destruction of the soul, not of the destruction of the body.
God has made no decree for the perdition of the sinner. If the sinner is lost, he is the only one to blame for this.

Tom:I was under the impression that you believe the principle doesn't apply to either that soul or the body. That is, God actually destroys both, yet your comment here one lead one to think you perceive that God doesn't destroy the soul, although He destroys the body.

Actually I'm a bit confused as to the point you were wishing to make, since neither the body nor the soul can be destroyed without destroying the other.

quote:
God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself. Everyone who stifles the admonitions of conscience is sowing the seeds of unbelief, and these will produce a sure harvest. By rejecting the first warning from God, Pharaoh of old sowed the seeds of obstinacy, and he reaped obstinacy. God did not compel him to disbelieve. The seed of unbelief which he sowed produced a harvest of its kind. Thus his resistance continued, until he looked upon his devastated land, upon the cold, dead form of his first-born, and the first-born of all in his house and of all the families in his kingdom, until the waters of the sea closed over his horses and his chariots and his men of war. (COL 84, 85)
This is speaking of destruction of the body.


Old Tom:You think the wicked are in no danger until God does something to put them there.

R:I’ve never said that.

Tom:I should have written, "It appears to me that..." It's true you haven't said this, but your comments imply this.

R:We know very little about this subject to determine exactly when and why and in what ways God protects or refrains from protecting people.

Tom:I agree with this (assuming I'm understanding your words the same way you intended them).

R:What I don’t see evidence for saying is that God protects us from nature.

Tom:The MH 416 quote I cited earlier brings this out. So do the Psalms and Job. For example, God set the limit to how far the waters may advance. New Orleans is but a small measure of how powerful the forces of nature are from which God constantly protects us. Consider what a comet or large asteroid would do if it collided with this planet. Or if the sun veered off course. Many examples could be given.

Nature is not self-acting. It takes the steady hand of God to keep us safe. If we would remove God from His position as our sustainer and protector, ruin must follow.

R:What Ellen White says is that God protects from Satan’s destructive manipulation of nature, imposing a limit to him.

Tom:This is also true, but the principle goes deeper than this, as I point out just above. God actively sustains and protects us in the natural realm, as well as in the spiritual.

Old Tom:No, God couldn't have waited, because that would have been violating their freedom of choice. They made it clear they wanted nothing to do with God, and God honored their choice.

R:What I don’t understand is how you think this explanation shows a good picture of God.
Let’s return to that comparison I’ve created. Suppose the mayor of a city whose dam was not in good conditions builds a reinforcement system. One day, however, the people of that city say to him, “Go away, we don’t want you here and we don’t want your protection. Remove the reinforcement system you built!” Then he goes away and, respecting the wish of the people (sigh), he removes the reinforcement system of the dam, knowing that it will break and and that the water will inundate the city and kill everyone. What do you think of a person like that? If you were the mayor, would you remove the reinforcement system?

Tom:This would be true, if that's as far as it went. But your illustration is not capturing the true dynamics of the situation. Your interjection of the "sigh" makes clear a lack of understanding of what really happens.

It's not a matter of a one time request, but of a consistent, persistent resistance of the wooing of God's Spirit.

It's like the case of Satan. It wasn't a one time sin which lead to his ruin, but it was time and again refusing the pardon which God offered him. Eventually he reached the point to where God could no longer help him.

Here's some quotes which illustrate the principle:

quote:
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, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will.(GC 36)
In the parable of the murdered Son, the owner of the vineyard sent out servants, more servants, and finally His Son.

In the quote above speaking of Pharaoh the Spirit of Prophesy brings out how it was a continual stream of resistance that led to his ruin. God is patient, but He can eventually be beat off if one is persistent enough. It's not easy, but it can be done.

The reason the view I have been presenting speaks well of God is that it is the revelation of God's character which Jesus Christ did. Nothing I am sharing (that I'm aware of at any rate -- you'd have to point out how not) is in any way out of harmony with Christ's character, whereas the viewpoint that God destroys those who oppose Him.

First of all, when it was suggested to Christ that He act in this way, He replied:

quote:
...they did not receive him...And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.(Luke 9:52-56)
The Spirit of Prophesy comments on this event:

quote:
There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas.(DA 487)
How many times did Christ ascribe some act of suffering, whether by a natural disaster, or sickenss, or any cause whatsoever to God? Not once!

The Spirit of Prophesy tells us:

quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.(8T 286)
This means there is nothing about God we need to know, or can know, which we do not see in Christ's life. So where in Christ's life do we see the destructive character ascribed to God?
Posted By: Charity

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/05/05 02:33 AM

quote:
Tom: So where in Christ's life do we see the destructive character ascribed to God?
The clearest example would be in the cursing of the fig tree. Maybe you have commented on that event already Tom, but how does that fit in?

Regarding David’s impassioned pleas for vengeance, are you sure you are ready to jettison all that scripture? Christ I believe inspired it by the Holy Spirit. David calls out to God rather than taking matters into his own hands, because, as scripture says, ‘Vengeance is Mine’. In Revelation Christ reveals Himself again as having a sword that brings punishment on the wicked.

It is true that the wicked reap what they sow, but it is ultimately God through Christ who enforces His law.

You say that the justice of God is his mercy and grace. This is confusion. The Bible does not equate the two. They both exist in the character of God. God is love. Love is the harmonious blending of justice and mercy. In order to manifest what mercy is, there must be justice. Justice defines what a person is fairly entitled to. In the cases of the redeemed, the glory of God is revealed in His mercy by contrasting what the person is entitled to with what they actually receive.

In contrast, the wicked reject the mercy of God. And so they receive His justice.

It is true that they reap what they sow. But the reason this is so is because God upholds the principles of His character that undergird all of his created works. He actively guides the stars and planets. The laws of nature are dynamic and are governed directly by God. In the same way, He also actively enforces His moral laws.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/05/05 04:24 AM

Excellent questions, Mark. I'll respond a little at a time, so the posts won't be too long.

(By the way, if you have Shades of Grace by Ty Gibson you may wish to look around page 56, which deals with the theme of selfishness and life, which I'll touch on later).

First of all, regarding the fig tree, this is a bit of the commentary from the Desire of Ages:

quote:
The cursing of the fig tree was an acted parable. That barren tree, flaunting its pretentious foliage in the very face of Christ, was a symbol of the Jewish nation. The Saviour desired to make plain to His disciples the cause and the certainty of Israel's doom. For this purpose He invested the tree with moral qualities, and made it the expositor of divine truth (DA 582)
This brings us back to the destruction of Jerusalem. I've quoted from GC 35-37 many times, as I believe this is probably the clearest description of the principles involved in the destruction of the wicked. Here's a small portion:

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, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control. {GC 35.3}
These were the principles the cursing of the fig tree were designed to teach; the same principles we've been seeing all along. God's spirit, finally and persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn, and ruin results.

Here's some more of the description of the cursing of the fig tree.

quote:
They brought ruin upon themselves by refusing to minister to others. The treasures of truth which God had committed to them, they did not give to the world. In the barren tree they might read both their sin and its punishment. Withered beneath the Saviour's curse, standing forth sere and blasted, dried up by the roots, the fig tree showed what the Jewish people would be when the grace of God was removed from them. Refusing to impart blessing, they would no longer receive it. "O Israel," the Lord says, "thou hast destroyed thyself." Hosea 13:9. {DA 583.2}
The fig tree was dried up from the roots, not blasted from above, like from a bold of lightening, but rather in a way showing that grace was being withheld; the fig tree "showed what the Jewish people would be when the grace of God was removed from them." The principle I have been suggesting which leads to destruction is that God removes His sustaining/protecting hand, and the cursing of the fig tree illustrates this principle perfectly.

Notice that the exact same principle is enunciated as in the other examples we have looked at, including the destruction of the Egyptions, the destruction of Jerusalem, the destruction of the wicked, the flood; whatever disaster we have looked at, in every case we have the quote: "O Israel, thou has destroyed theyself."

Here's a bit more:

quote:
The warning is for all time. Christ's act in cursing the tree which His own power had created stands as a warning to all churches and to all Christians. No one can live the law of God without ministering to others. But there are many who do not live out Christ's merciful, unselfish life.
Christ said if we would gain eternal life, we must lose our life. Unless a grain of wheat falls to the earth, it dies alone. If we die to self, we will live. But if we live for self alone, we will die eternally. This is not an arbitrary act on the part of God, but the outworking of the principle that governs God's universe. Self-sacrificing love = life eternal. Selfishness = eternal death. This is the lesson of the fig tree.

As the Spirit of Prophesy points out, Christ was only apparently acting differently than at other times in His ministry, so this episode cannot be used as an exception to the rest of Christ's life. Even here He was acting according to the same principles He acted according to all the time. His purpose was to reveal the character of His Father; that of a Restorer, not Destroyer.

"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." (CH 168)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/05/05 06:00 AM

Mark:Regarding David’s impassioned pleas for vengeance, are you sure you are ready to jettison all that scripture?

Tom:According to the Spirit of Prophesy, "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." 8T 286.

So this means whatever it is you think you see in David in the Psalms, we should see in Christ's life, correct? So I would ask you where you see whatever it is you are seeing in David in Christ's life.

David cannot trump Christ.

Mark:Christ I believe inspired it by the Holy Spirit. David calls out to God rather than taking matters into his own hands, because, as scripture says, ‘Vengeance is Mine’.

Tom:Here is the probably the clearest Scripture which discusses "vengeance is mine."

quote:
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 Therefore if your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 14:21)
This is quoting from the Sermon on the Mount, which says,

quote:
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:38-48)

Here is what EGW writes regarding this passage:

quote:
The whole earthly life of Jesus was a manifestation of this principle. It was to bring the bread of life to His enemies that our Saviour left His home in heaven. Though calumny and persecution were heaped upon Him from the cradle to the grave, they called forth from Him only the expression of forgiving love. Through the prophet Isaiah He says, "I gave My back to the smiters, and My cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not My face from shame and spitting." "He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth." Isaiah 50:6; 53:7. And from the cross of Calvary there come down through the ages His prayer for His murderers and the message of hope to the dying thief. {MB 71.1}
The principle is that evil is to be overcome by good. Instead of repaying evil for evil, God repays evil with good. Evil is actually defeated by good! This is because sin is suicidal. It is predicated on a principle which cannot survive, which DA 764 points out.

To summarize, the principle of vengeance is one of overcoming evil with good, of turning the other cheek, giving the shirt off one's back, going the extra mile. The beauty of God's government is that it actually will overcome evil according to its principles of love, mercy and truth. As the Spirit of Prophesy puts it in DA 108, "The light of the glory of God [i.e. the truth of His wonderful character], which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked." (comment in bracket mine)

Mark: In Revelation Christ reveals Himself again as having a sword that brings punishment on the wicked.

Tom:Here is an expalnation of a Scripture which combines the warlike theme you have suggested with the word of God theme, which is what the sword represents (Heb. 4:12; Eph. 6:17).

quote:
Then shall they that obey not the gospel be consumed with the spirit of His mouth, and be destroyed with the brightness of His coming. Like Israel of old, the wicked destroy themselves; they fall by their iniquity. By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire. (GC 37)
This passage seems to me to explain perfectly the idea of Christ's sword in Revelation. We can explore this in more detail if you wish.

Mark:It is true that the wicked reap what they sow, but it is ultimately God through Christ who enforces His law.

Tom:God enforces His law by allowing the results of sin to take place. This is His strange act. The description is given here:

quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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 764.1}
The GC 37 quote also brings out the same principle. By a life of sin, those who reject God's grace form characters so out of harmony with Him that His very presence becomes to them a consuming fire. We also note from DA 108 that it is the same thing which gives life to the righteous (i.e. the light of the glory of God) which slays the wicked, making it clear that it really is the actions of the wicked which cause their demise, not some arbitrary enforcement on the part of God.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/05/05 06:10 AM

Mark:You say that the justice of God is his mercy and grace. This is confusion. The Bible does not equate the two.

Tom:Let's take a look at some Scriptures to see.

quote:
"Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isaiah 1:17)
quote:
"This is what the LORD says: "`Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed" (Jeremiah 21:12)
quote:
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: `Administer true justice: show mercy and compassion to one another. (Zechariah 7:9)
quote:
"Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice".( Isaiah 30:18)
What we see from the above Scriptures is that justice in Scripture involves setting things right. The way that God sets things right is by mercy and compassion. There's no confusion here!

Mark:They both exist in the character of God. God is love. Love is the harmonious blending of justice and mercy. In order to manifest what mercy is, there must be justice. Justice defines what a person is fairly entitled to. In the cases of the redeemed, the glory of God is revealed in His mercy by contrasting what the person is entitled to with what they actually receive.

Tom:So in the case of the redeemed, God can be unjust? Is that the idea? That seems to be what you are saying, because you write that in the case of the redeemed by contrasing what they actually receive to what they are entitled to.

Mark:In contrast, the wicked reject the mercy of God. And so they receive His justice.

Tom:But God is just to the wicked. So if we disregard God's law, we will be treated justly. But if we don't, we won't be. [Confused]

I believe God is just and merciful to everybody, whether or not they reject His mercy. What people really do when they reject God's mercy is to substitue their own justice for His. John has written quite a bit about this theme. Maybe he'll jump in here.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/05/05 02:58 PM

quote:
Actually I'm a bit confused as to the point you were wishing to make, since neither the body nor the soul can be destroyed without destroying the other.
Tom,

My point is that Ellen White is speaking here about pharao and how he destroyed his own soul by committing the sin against the Holy Spirit. It was his fault that the land was devastated, that his first-born and the first-born of all the families in his kingdom died, that his army was killed in the sea. All this was his fault, yet he himself did not die. Ellen White is speaking of his spiritual destruction, not of his physical destruction. When Ellen White says that God destroys no man, she is referring to resistance to the light (spiritual self-destruction), not to physical destruction.

quote:
Tom:The MH 416 quote I cited earlier brings this out. So do the Psalms and Job. For example, God set the limit to how far the waters may advance. New Orleans is but a small measure of how powerful the forces of nature are from which God constantly protects us. Consider what a comet or large asteroid would do if it collided with this planet. Or if the sun veered off course. Many examples could be given.
God set limits to the sea at Creation, and established the orbits of the heavenly bodies when He created them. Everything in the whole universe, fallen or unfallen, depends on God’s sustaining power. If God has to protect us from nature, God has to protect the unfallen worlds too. If God removes His hand, their planets and stars will also divert from their orbits, and if they have a sea, it is also God who fixes its limits. There, in the same way as here, it is by God’s power that vegetation flourishes. So I still see no evidence that God has to protect us from nature. What Ellen White says is that God limits Satan’s destructive manipulation of nature.

quote:
It's not a matter of a one time request, but of a consistent, persistent resistance of the wooing of God's Spirit.
God’s departure from an individual or from a nation is one thing, physical destruction is another thing. God departed from pharao, as I pointed out, but pharao himself wasn’t physically destroyed. Probably he died later in consequence of his own wrong choices. Saul, and later the israelites at the destruction of Jerusalem, suffered and died because of their own subsequent choices. But in the case of the flood, Sodom, the Egyptian army, you claim that God removed His protection and these people were immediately destroyed (and of course God knew that this was going to happen). Therefore, I just can’t see removing the reinforcement system as being in any way better than opening the floodgates.
God only employs physical destruction when He is forced to do this for the protection of others.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/05/05 05:41 PM

quote:
So the short version of the long answer to your question is that God does not do bad things because it is contrary to His character. We have enough evidence regarding His character to know that when He is presented as doing something bad it means He is permitting the bad thing to happen.
Tom, the Bible and the SOP clearly teach that God caused the Flood that killed millions of unsaved sinners. He did not permit it. Instead, He caused it. Plain and simple. No amount of arguing is going to change the facts.

In cases where God permits others (evil angels, holy angels, or human beings) to fulfill His will, it doesn't change the facts one iota. Whether God causes or permits death, disease, or destruction to befall unsaved sinners - He is ultimately and intimately responsible. The honor and glory belongs to Him alone.

Somehow, some way His "strange acts" are righteous and altogether holy. The sooner we as a church can accept this fact the sooner Jesus can return in glory and power "in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thes 1:8.

Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/05/05 09:29 PM

R:My point is that Ellen White is speaking here about pharao and how he destroyed his own soul by committing the sin against the Holy Spirit. It was his fault that the land was devastated, that his first-born and the first-born of all the families in his kingdom died, that his army was killed in the sea. All this was his fault, yet he himself did not die.

Tom:Didn't he die in the Red Sea?

R:Ellen White is speaking of his spiritual destruction, not of his physical destruction.

Tom:Why do you think this? Is the following statement only "spiritual" as well?

quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer. The Ministry of Healing, 113.
R:When Ellen White says that God destroys no man, she is referring to resistance to the light (spiritual self-destruction), not to physical destruction.

Tom:Why do you think this?

quote:
"Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree corning upon the earth, and why? The Lord's restraining power is not exercised. The world has disregarded the word of God. They live as though there were no God. Like the inhabitants of the Noachic world, they refuse to have any thought of God. Wickedness prevails to an alarming extent, and the earth is ripe for the harvest." Testimonies for the Church, 6:388, 389.
This is talking about physical calamities which cause physical death. Satan is the destroyer. He destroys when God permits him to do his destroying work.

Old Tom:The MH 416 quote I cited earlier brings this out. So do the Psalms and Job. For example, God set the limit to how far the waters may advance. New Orleans is but a small measure of how powerful the forces of nature are from which God constantly protects us. Consider what a comet or large asteroid would do if it collided with this planet. Or if the sun veered off course. Many examples could be given.

R:God set limits to the sea at Creation, and established the orbits of the heavenly bodies when He created them. Everything in the whole universe, fallen or unfallen, depends on God’s sustaining power. If God has to protect us from nature, God has to protect the unfallen worlds too. If God removes His hand, their planets and stars will also divert from their orbits, and if they have a sea, it is also God who fixes its limits. There, in the same way as here, it is by God’s power that vegetation flourishes. So I still see no evidence that God has to protect us from nature. What Ellen White says is that God limits Satan’s destructive manipulation of nature.

Tom:Creation is not something which is wound up like a watch. It requires God's constant oversight to make sure everything works correctly. If God were to remove His sustaining hand, we would be instantly destroyed. In point of fact, God does protect the unfallen worlds, just as he protects our fallen world.

Old Tom:It's not a matter of a one time request, but of a consistent, persistent resistance of the wooing of God's Spirit.

R:God’s departure from an individual or from a nation is one thing, physical destruction is another thing.

Tom:Why do you think this? The same principles are at work. God protects and sustains; the individual or nation persists in rebellion; God departs; the individual or nation suffers ruin. One sees the same principles expalined in Jer. 18 and Ex. 18 (the first for nations, the second for individuals). If you look at the writings of the Spirit of Prophesy in GC 35-37 (discussing a nation) and DA 764 (discussing the individual) the same principles are expressed, and virtually the same words.

Can you establish the principle that God's principles are different depending on whether He is dealing with nations or indiviuals?

R:God departed from pharao, as I pointed out, but pharao himself wasn’t physically destroyed.

Tom:Again, wasn't he destroyed physically in the Red Sea? I know in the movie the Ten Commandments Pharaoh watched from the sidelines, because for $100,000 (movie stars were cheap then) you don't kill Yule Brenner, but in real life, didn't Pharaoh die in the Red Sea? I don't think this makes any difference to the discussion, but I'm interested if I've been mistaken all these years.

R:Probably he died later in consequence of his own wrong choices. Saul, and later the israelites at the destruction of Jerusalem, suffered and died because of their own subsequent choices. But in the case of the flood, Sodom, the Egyptian army, you claim that God removed His protection and these people were immediately destroyed (and of course God knew that this was going to happen). Therefore, I just can’t see removing the reinforcement system as being in any way better than opening the floodgates.
God only employs physical destruction when He is forced to do this for the protection of others.

Tom:The difference is that in the one case God's actions are in harmony with the principles of His government, and the revelation of His character in the life of His Son, and in the other they aren't. In one case God is the destroyer, in the other, Satan in. In the one case force is a principle of God's government, in the other it isn't. In the one case, when we've seen Christ we've seen the Father, in the other we don't.

According to the Spirit of Prophesy, all we can know of God was revealed in the life of Jesus Christ. Where in the life of Jesus Christ is it revealed that God will use overwhelming force to get His way? Where is it revealed that God will inflict those who oppose Him with terrible diseases?

Is the Great Controversy being fought over God's power or His character?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/06/05 05:48 AM

Mike, the Spirit of Prophesy says that all that we can know about God has been revealed in the life of His Son. Can you relat how Christ's life reveals to us the side of God's character where He inflicts those who disagree with Him with pestilence, or in any way harms or destroys them? I've somehow missed this from Christ's life.

Christ told us to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek, to walk the extra mile.

quote:
What He taught, He lived. "I have given you an example," He said to His disciples; "that ye should do as I have done." "I have kept My Father's commandments." John 13:15; 15:10. Thus in His life, Christ's words had perfect illustration and support. And more than this; what He taught, He was. His words were the expression, not only of His own life experience, but of His own character. Not only did He teach the truth, but He was the truth. It was this that gave His teaching, power. (Ed 78)
Christ's mission was to reveal the character of His Father. This character was one who did what He taught; He loved His enemies, He walked the second mile. He did no harm to those who did not appreciate Him.

quote:
There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas. (DA 487)
God does not possess the spirit of Satan! He has no disposition to harm or destroy those who disagree with Him. However, if one stubornly resists His Spirit, He will eventually give such a one up to their choice.

quote:
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. It is Satan's power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of. {14MR 3.1}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/06/05 05:41 PM

Tom, posting quotes about the love of God, while ignoring the Flood, does not address the wrath of God. There is a point beyond which the mercy of God is exhausted. Once the cup of God's wrath is full mercy no longer pleads and retribution and vengeance is visited upon unsaved sinners. Nevertheless, the wrath of God is love.

Exodus
34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].

Deuteronomy
32:39 See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of my hand.
32:40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.
32:41 If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.

Psalm
149:5 Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.
149:6 [Let] the high [praises] of God [be] in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand;
149:7 To execute vengeance upon the heathen, [and] punishments upon the people;
149:8 To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
149:9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Tom, what is your opinion about the plain testimonies regarding the Flood? Do the Flood quotes tone down the "wrath of God" when they describe the Flood? Please, Tom, use the Flood quotes themselves to prove your point. Quoting unrelated passages in an attempt to prove God didn't cause the Flood isn't the same thing as quoting the Flood testimonies themselves. Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/06/05 05:49 PM

LDE 242
God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.--PC 136 (1894). {LDE 242.3}

God's judgments were awakened against Jericho. It was a stronghold. But the Captain of the Lord's host Himself came from heaven to lead the armies of heaven in an attack upon the city. Angels of God laid hold of the massive walls and brought them to the ground.--3T 264 (1873). {LDE 243.1}

Under God the angels are all-powerful. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they slew of the Assyrian army in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men.--DA 700 (1898). {LDE 243.2}

The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod. The angel smote Peter to arouse him from slumber. It was with a different stroke that he smote the wicked king, laying low his pride and bringing upon him the punishment of the Almighty. Herod died in great agony of mind and body, under the retributive judgment of God.--AA 152 (1911). {LDE 243.3}

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. 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}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/06/05 07:43 PM

Mike, this is a long thread. It didn't get off the flood from my initiative. I have attempted to spin of other topics at times when this has happened. I have not responded to flood questions with unrelated quotes, but have responded to the unrelated questions with quotes which relate to the other questions brought up. Whatever has been brought up, I have responded to.

If you look through the posts, you will see there is an overall agreement (at least, this is what I have gathered) as to how the flood occurred.

Massive amounts of water were stored under the earth's crust, of which the antedeluvians were unaware. They thought that a flood would be impossible, because there wasn't enough water available to make it happen. The earth opened up, and the waters beneath the crust burst out, and this precepitated the flood.

The question comes up as to whether God was holding back the forces of these waters to burst forth until the time the flood occurred, at which point the waters burst forth and the flood happened, or whether everything was hunky dory until God decided to open the earth up, and then the flood happened.

Rosangela suggested it didn't make any difference which way it was at first, and then changed her mind to say it did make a difference; that the way of looking at things I suggested was inferior. I started a topic to discuss whether or not it makes a difference as to how we view what happened. She agreed that the way I was suggesting the flood occured was possible (although she thinks it is not probably).

I have not noticed in your response any attempt to related your view of things to the character of Jesus Christ. According to the Spirit of Prophesy, all that we can know of God was revealed in the life of Jesus Christ. Would you please explain to me how you see your view of God reflected in Jesus Christ's life?

Thank you.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/07/05 12:09 AM

quote:
Tom:Didn't he die in the Red Sea?
You were right, after all, about pharaoh; although most quotes say his armies or his hosts were destroyed, I’ve found a quote which says that he also died in the Red Sea - 4T 25.2.

quote:
This is talking about physical calamities which cause physical death. Satan is the destroyer. He destroys when God permits him to do his destroying work.
Tom, there is no doubt Satan sends calamities and is the destroyer par excellence. A destroyer is someone whose main purpose is destroying.
However, although God could never be described as a destroyer, this doesn’t mean He never destroys.
What I see is that the passages which say that God destroys no one, and which use pharaoh as an example, deal primarily with the sin against the Holy Spirit, that is, the destruction of the soul. About physical destruction, what Ellen White says in relation to him is,

“Pharaoh once proudly inquired, ‘Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice?’ He learned by his own experience that it was He that hath power to create or to destroy.” {ST, November 4, 1880 par. 9}

Although many times the wrath of God is manifested in His no longer shielding sinners from Satan’s power, I see no evidence that this is always the case. Summarizing what we've been discussing:

1- In the case of the antediluvians and of the Egyptians, I still sincerely can see no solid evidence for the argument that nature was responsible for these destructions, especially in the destruction of the Egyptians, whrere it is clear that both the opening and the closing of the sea were acts of God’s power.

2- In the case of God’s commanding His people to kill, I still sincerely can see no evidence that it was a permission and not a command. Especially when I read passages like the following:

“Moses' work for Israel was almost done; yet one more act remained for the aged leader to perform, ere he should go to his long rest. ‘Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites,’ was the divine command; ‘afterward thou shalt be gathered unto thy people.’ This mandate was communicated to Israel, not as the word of Moses, but of Christ, their invisible leader; and it was immediately obeyed. One thousand men were selected from each of the tribes of Israel, and sent out against the Midianites. In the battles which followed, that people were defeated, with great slaughter.

“The men who promptly and speedily executed the divine judgments upon those heathen nations have been pronounced harsh and unmerciful in destroying so many human lives. But all who reason thus, fail to understand the character and dealings of God. In his infinite mercy, the Lord had long spared those idolatrous nations, giving them evidence upon evidence that he, the mighty Jehovah, was the God whom they should serve. He had commanded Moses not to make war upon Moab or Midian, for their cup of iniquity was not yet full. ...

“When the king of Moab had called Balaam to pronounce a curse upon Israel, and thus accomplish their destruction, the goodness and mercy of God was strikingly displayed. ... The Moabites themselves could see that it was the power of God which controlled the avaricious prophet, and compelled him in the most exalted strains of inspiration to proclaim Israel God's chosen, and his almighty power her protection. Here the last ray of light shone upon a stiff-necked people who had set their wills in defiance to the will of God. When, at the suggestion of Balaam, the snare was laid for Israel, which resulted in the destruction of many thousands, then it was that the Midianites filled up the measure of their iniquities. Then their day of probation ended, the door of mercy was to them closed, and the mandate went forth from Him who can create and can destroy, ‘Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles.'" {ST, January 6, 1881}

About the life of Christ. You said, for instance, that you consider legitimate for God to cease sustaining life, like in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. But where in the life of Christ do we see Him doing this?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/07/05 01:58 AM

R:Tom, there is no doubt Satan sends calamities and is the destroyer par excellence. A destroyer is someone whose main purpose is destroying.
However, although God could never be described as a destroyer, this doesn’t mean He never destroys.

Tom:I made this same point, and asked the question as to why. The reason I see is that the way that God destroys is fundamentally different than the way Satan destroys. Satan destroys according to the way we would expect. God destroys according to the description in GC 35-37 and other places; He removes His sustaining/protecting hand.

R:What I see is that the passages which say that God destroys no one, and which use pharaoh as an example, deal primarily with the sin against the Holy Spirit, that is, the destruction of the soul. About physical destruction, what Ellen White says in relation to him is,

“Pharaoh once proudly inquired, ‘Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice?’ He learned by his own experience that it was He that hath power to create or to destroy.” {ST, November 4, 1880 par. 9}

Although many times the wrath of God is manifested in His no longer shielding sinners from Satan’s power, I see no evidence that this is always the case.

Tom:Why would you assume it's not always the case? Why would you need additional evidence from the general principle? There are so many Scriptures which say something like this:

quote:
"Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?
And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods." (Deut 31:17, 18)

This IS the description of God's wrath. Why assume that God's wrath means something different? There's no place in Scripture which describes God's wrath any differently, as "not hiding My face" or "not forsaking them", so there's no reason to assume that sometimes God's wrath = God's forsaking them and sometimes God's wrath = not forsaking them.

R:Summarizing what we've been discussing:

1- In the case of the antediluvians and of the Egyptians, I still sincerely can see no solid evidence for the argument that nature was responsible for these destructions, especially in the destruction of the Egyptians, whrere it is clear that both the opening and the closing of the sea were acts of God’s power.

Tom:Nature was obviously responsible. The Egyptians drowned. They weren't killed in some unknown supernatural way. They were drowned. God was controling nature. He maintained His protection for the Isralites, who desired it, and didn't for the Egyptians, who didn't.

I'm not arguing that nature was responsible for their death apart from God's actions, but that God's actions were in harmony with His character, which is to withdraw when His presence is not desired. God forsook the Egyptians, which led to their ruin, just as forsaking the Israelites would lead to their ruin, as described in Deut. 31.

R: 2- In the case of God’s commanding His people to kill, I still sincerely can see no evidence that it was a permission and not a command. Especially when I read passages like the following:

Tom: The evidence is Jesus Christ. In Him is revealed the character of God. Everything we can know of God was revealed by His life. If you can't find something in His life which reveals what you think you see in God's character, something isn't right.

Regarding the question of God's killing by witholding grace, I see the fig tree as illustrating the same principle. The fig tree died because God witheld His grace from it (according to EGW's description in DA).

Now where is an example of Christ taking up a sword and killing somebody? Or of Christ sending pestilence on someone? Isn't the very idea laughable? When the disciples urged Him to destroy, He told them they didn't know what spirit they were of. Destroying is not what Christ was about; that's another spirit. Christ was about doing good. He healed and restored. He manifested the character of God.

There can be no more conclusive sign that we are manifesting the spirit of Satan than the disposition to harm and destroy those who do not appreciate our work. The last resort of every false religion is the use of force. Force is not a principle of God's government. I do not see how the viewpoint you are presenting harmonizes with these principles, nor how it harmonizes with the life of Jesus Christ.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/07/05 04:48 PM

quote:
Tom:Why would you assume it's not always the case? Why would you need additional evidence from the general principle? There are so many Scriptures which say something like this:
Who said this is a general principle? There are so many Scriptures which say something like this:

“And Israel joined himself unto Baal of Peor, and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel’” (Numb. 25:3,4).

I don’t agree that the difference between God and Satan is in the manner of destruction – that is, Satan destroys actively and God destroys passively.

In fact, there is no difference in destroying actively and in destroying passively. God Himself teaches this in the story of David and Uriah. Although David did not personally take the life of Uriah, he is still accused of having “struck down Uriah the Hittitie with the sword” (2 Sam. 12:9).

The difference between God and Satan is in the motivation for destruction. Satan destroys to make others suffer, God destroys in mercy – mercy to those who are destroyed and mercy to others for whom they became a menace.

There should also be pointed out that there is a difference between God’s departing from a person or nation, and God’s destruction of a person or nation.

King Saul did not represent a menace to Israel, and the Israelites did not represent a menace to the world. God departed from them, but God did not appoint them to destruction.

This was not, however, the case of pharaoh’s army, who constituted a menace to God’s people; of the antediluvians who, if not destroyed, would cause the whole earth to be engulfed by sin and the knowledge of God to become extinct; of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose immorality would spread and contaminate the world; of the canaanite nations, whose idolatry and immorality was a threat to the diffusion of God’s knowledge; of the idolaters among Israel who would contaminate the whole nation. Of Ananias and Sapphira, of whom it is said, “Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized” (AA 74).

When God is forced to appoint someone to destruction, He doesn’t have to hide behind someone or something to do the dirty work. He Himself chooses and commands the instruments to perform His will – whether nature, or people or angels.

A last word about Ananias and Sapphira. Since God is the source of all life, removing the connection of life from a being having to borrow life from Him is depriving that person of life. No matter how one slices it, to deprive another being of life is killing them, and this is not a form of passive, but of active destruction.

Bringing destruction upon the wicked is not something God takes pleasure in, as I said, but rather an action that must be taken to prevent sin from becoming an unchecked destructive force. The taking of life from the wicked is an act of mercy and love for both the righteous and the wicked alike, to preserve His people and His knowledge on earth. And this is in perfect harmony with the character of Jesus Christ.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/07/05 05:20 PM

Rosangela, I'll respond to your post in more detail later, as I have more opportunity, but I'll repeat my question which I've asked a few times, which is where in the life of Christ do you see God acting in the way you suppose He acts? Given that all we can know about God was revealed in the life of His Son, where in Christ's life is it revealed that God inflicts those who oppose Him with terrible diseases? Where did Christ every hurt, let alone kill, anybody in the way you are suggesting?

Another question, if your way of viewing things were correct, one would have expected Christ at some time to have attributed some act of destruction/disease/death to God. Why is it that not once did God attribute any such act to God, of all the people the He healed, or all the people He was asked about? (e.g. why was this one blind, why did these ones die)
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/07/05 05:24 PM

Tom, I agree, of course, with Rosangela's post (above) regarding the differences and similarities between God causing and permitting active and/or passive death and destruction.

"God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways ...." Either way it is God who kills and destroys them.

Concerning your question about the character of Christ - it was Jesus who punished and killed and destroyed unsaved sinners in the OT.

There is nothing ambiguous in the testimonies about who or what caused the Flood that killed millions. Very clearly Jesus used water from above and beneath the earth to punish and to kill the Antediluvians. Again, the wrath of God is love – whether we understand it or not.

Jesus said of Himself - "I kill." Deut 32:39. Rather than twist the meaning of this passage it would behoove us to seek to understand the truth. In light of this truth holy angels proclaim:

Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/07/05 11:19 PM

Old Tom:Why would you assume it's not always the case? Why would you need additional evidence from the general principle? There are so many Scriptures which say something like this:

R:Who said this is a general principle?

Tom:It's in the Bible, so God did. That is, God laid out the principle. Here's the text again:

quote:
"Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?
And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods." (Deut 31:17, 18)

This text shows that God's angers is manifest in His forsaking the one against whom He is angry. In order for you to show this is not a general principle, you would have to produce an incident where God was angry, yet did NOT forsake the one against whom He was angry.

R:There are so many Scriptures which say something like this:

“And Israel joined himself unto Baal of Peor, and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel’” (Numb. 25:3,4).

Tom:We know that God presents Himself as doing that which He permits, and that God is like Jesus. Or rather, God is Jesus. When we've seen Christ, we've seen the Father. All that we can know about God was revealed in the life of Jesus Christ. So unless you can show me something in the life of Christ which corresponds to what you think you are seeing in God's character, I'll have to conclude that you are seeing something which isn't there.

Here's another way to arrive at the same conclusion that if we see God in a different way than He is revealed in Christ, then there's something wrong with the we are seeing Him. Jesus said He did what He saw His Father doing, and spoke what He heard His Father say. Where did Jesus learn about God? From the Old Testatement, which was the only Scripture He had. Now what did Jesus reveal about God? He revealed a God who is totally different than the orthodox view.

The orthodox view is that God is "tooth for tooth" "eye for eye". But Jesus said,

quote:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.(Matt. 5:38-45)

To be children of God is to be like Him in character. God's character is just like what Jesus laid out for us to be like. God loves His enemies. He does good to them. God's enemies destroy themselves by causing God to forsake them.

R:I don’t agree that the difference between God and Satan is in the manner of destruction – that is, Satan destroys actively and God destroys passively.

In fact, there is no difference in destroying actively and in destroying passively.

Tom:You keep flip-flopping on this. You started out saying there was no difference, and I asked you if you didn't think there was a difference, why did you argue so strongly against the idea. And you said, "Can I be honest?" You said you could respect a God who said, "If you are not worthy, I will take your life away." Now you are back to saying it doesn't make any difference.

R:God Himself teaches this in the story of David and Uriah. Although David did not personally take the life of Uriah, he is still accused of having “struck down Uriah the Hittitie with the sword” (2 Sam. 12:9).

Tom:This is in no way analagous to destruction occuring because God removes His sustaining/protecting hand. Your example is more analagous to running someone over with a car, and then saying you were not active in killing the person; the car was.

R:The difference between God and Satan is in the motivation for destruction.

Tom:Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations. The end does not justify the means. God does not act contrary to the principles of His government.

"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government."(DA 22)"Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work." (6T 388)"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." (MH 113) ""There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." (DA 487)

God always acts in harmony with these principles. Not only are His motives pure, but His actions are as well; God always acts in accordance with the principles of His government, which are simply that outworking of the attributes of His character. God always acts like Jesus Christ.

R:Satan destroys to make others suffer, God destroys in mercy – mercy to those who are destroyed and mercy to others for whom they became a menace.

Tom:It's true that the motives are different, but not only are the motives different, the manner is different too. God destroys be forsaking those who have rejected Him. When God removes His protecting/sustaining hand, ruin results. This same principle is evident in the destruction of the Egpytians, the destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of Christ, the final destruction of the wicked; whatever. You will see that in each and every case the Spirit of Prophesy points out that the wicked have destroyed themselves.

R:There should also be pointed out that there is a difference between God’s departing from a person or nation, and God’s destruction of a person or nation.

Tom:You have asserted this, but have not given any reason why this should be the case. I pointed out that Jer. 18 and Ezek. 18 espouse the same principles, whereas one is dealing with nations and the other with individuals. Also the desctriptions in GC 35-37 and DA 764 are viturally identical, and one deals with a nation, whereas the other with an individual.

The basic premise is that God gives favor to individuals or nations on the basis of obedience to His law. When an entity is disobedient, then ruin follows, whether the entity by a nation or an individual. One could probably find this principle stated dozens of times in the Spirit of Prophesy for both.

I'm curious as to why you would assert such a principle. There must be something which you see applies to either nations or individuals, but not to the other.

R:King Saul did not represent a menace to Israel, and the Israelites did not represent a menace to the world. God departed from them, but God did not appoint them to destruction.

Tom:According to the Scriptures, God killed Saul, and God destroyed Jerusalem. So He did appoint them to destruction.

R:This was not, however, the case of pharaoh’s army, who constituted a menace to God’s people; of the antediluvians who, if not destroyed, would cause the whole earth to be engulfed by sin and the knowledge of God to become extinct; of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose immorality would spread and contaminate the world; of the canaanite nations, whose idolatry and immorality was a threat to the diffusion of God’s knowledge; of the idolaters among Israel who would contaminate the whole nation. Of Ananias and Sapphira, of whom it is said, “Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized” (AA 74).

Tom:When God's Spirit is stubornly rejected to the point where His voice will no longer be heard, God abandons the person/nation according to their choice, and ruin results.

R:When God is forced to appoint someone to destruction, He doesn’t have to hide behind someone or something to do the dirty work.

Tom:God doesn't do any dirty work. God is good. He is just like Jesus.

R:He Himself chooses and commands the instruments to perform His will – whether nature, or people or angels.

Tom:Or Satan. Shouldn't he be included in the list?

R:A last word about Ananias and Sapphira. Since God is the source of all life, removing the connection of life from a being having to borrow life from Him is depriving that person of life. No matter how one slices it, to deprive another being of life is killing them, and this is not a form of passive, but of active destruction.

Tom:According to this way of thinking, God kills everybody. God quits sustaining every human being sooner or later, so that would lead one to the conclusion that God kills everyone, or if you wanted to exclude those who die by violent means, He kills everybody who doesn't die violently.

It appears to me you think people have life inherently, but this isn't the case. Noone has life in themselves, except for God. God gives people an existance for awhile in order to see what character they will develop. He is under no obligation to give anyone life, and indeed it is only by His infinite grace that we have life at all. To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life. Our life is a gift of God, provided at infinite cost. It is not an inherent entitlement. For God to discontinue giving us life, which He is providing at infinite cost, when we have indicated we want nothing to do with us is in no way whatsoever equivalent to His killing us. It's like this:

quote:
The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.(DA 764)
A person cutting themself off from life is not the same thing as God killing them.

R:Bringing destruction upon the wicked is not something God takes pleasure in, as I said, but rather an action that must be taken to prevent sin from becoming an unchecked destructive force.

Tom:No, this isn't true. Sin is self-destructive. God must take actions to allow sin to exist. Notice again from DA 764:

quote:
God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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.

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. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.

The inevitable result of sin is death. God actually does something to prevent death from occuring. God is under no obligation to do this thing. If we choose to cut ourselves off from life, God will abide by our decision.

R:The taking of life from the wicked is an act of mercy and love for both the righteous and the wicked alike, to preserve His people and His knowledge on earth. And this is in perfect harmony with the character of Jesus Christ.

Tom:The wicked cut themselves off from life. God will accept the voluntary decision of the wicked to not continue their life. What ends their life is not an arbitrary action on the part of God, but their own choice. They reap what they have sown. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, destroys the wicked. God doesn't do one thing to the righteous and another to the wicked, but the same thing, the revelation of His character, has to different effets.

To prove that the taking of the life of the wicked is in harmony with the character of Jesus Christ it suffices to adduce an event in His life where He actually did this; i.e. where Christ actually took the life of a wicked person. Actually, providing evidence that Christ even condoned such a thing would be helpful.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/07/05 11:27 PM

Mike, didn't you realize that the quote was referencing Christ's life here on earth? I find it hard to believe you didn't know that. Here's some more of the quote:

quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1}

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." John 1:18. {8T 286.2}

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth--in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}

Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}

"The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, . . . full of grace and truth." Verse 14. {8T 286.5}

"Unto the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world,'' He said, "I manifested Thy name," "that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them." John 17:6, A. R. V., 26. {8T 286.6}

"Love your enemies," He bade them; "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven;" "for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." "He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." "Be ye therefore merciful, as
287
your Father also is merciful." Matthew 5:44, 45; Luke 6: 35, 36. {8T 286.7}

So where in Christ's earthly life does one find the picture of God's character you would espouse? I don't see it anywhere, Mike.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/08/05 04:59 PM

Tom,

While you keep saying that God can’t do this or that because Jesus didn’t do this or that while He was on earth, you fail to offer an explanation for the passages which go against your viewpoint.

Jesus couldn’t possibly do everything while He was on earth. He didn’t establish a tribunal to judge anyone while He was here, He didn’t reign as King, however this doesn’t mean He wouldn’t do so at a later point in History.

quote:
This text shows that God's angers is manifest in His forsaking the one against whom He is angry.
And Numbers 25:3,4 shows that God’s anger is also sometimes manifest in inflicting direct punishment on transgressors.

“The Lord is regarded as cruel, by many, in requiring his people to make war with other nations. They say that it is contrary to his benevolent character. But he who made the world, and formed man to dwell upon the earth, has unlimited control over all the works of his hands; and it is his right to do as he pleases, and what he pleases, with the work of his hands. Man has no right to say to his Maker, Why doest thou thus? There is no injustice in his character. He is the ruler of the world, and a large portion of his subjects have rebelled against his authority, and have trampled upon his law. ... God has borne with them until they filled up the measure of their iniquity, and then he has brought upon them swift destruction. He has used his people as instruments of his wrath, to punish wicked nations who have vexed them, and seduced them into idolatry.

“A family picture was presented before me: A part of the children seem anxious to learn and obey the requirements of the father, while the others trample upon his authority, and seem to exult in showing contempt of his family government. They share the benefits of their father's house, and are constantly receiving of his bounty; they are wholly dependent upon him for all they receive, yet are not grateful, but conduct themselves proudly, as though all the favors they received of their indulgent parent were supplied by themselves. The father notices all the disrespectful acts of his disobedient, ungrateful children, yet he bears with them.

“At length, these rebellious children go still further, and seek to influence and lead to rebellion those members of their father's family who have hitherto been faithful. Then all the dignity and authority of the father is called into action; and he expels from his house the rebellious children, who have not only abused his love and blessings themselves, but tried to subvert the remaining few who had submitted to the wise and judicious laws of their father's household.

“For the sake of the few who are loyal, whose happiness was exposed to the seditious influence of the rebellious members of his household, he separates his undutiful children from his family, while at the same time he labors to bring the remaining faithful and loyal ones closer to himself. All would honor the wise and just course of such a parent, in punishing most severely his undutiful, rebellious children.
“God has dealt thus with his children.” {1 SP 329, 330}

quote:
Tom:You keep flip-flopping on this. You started out saying there was no difference, and I asked you if you didn't think there was a difference, why did you argue so strongly against the idea. And you said, "Can I be honest?" You said you could respect a God who said, "If you are not worthy, I will take your life away." Now you are back to saying it doesn't make any difference.
It is you who are not understanding what I say. What I’m saying is that, in terms of responsibility for the act, there is NO difference. In each case, you are the sole responsible for the death of those involved. (In the example of the dam, which mayor is less guilty of the death of the whole city? He who opened the floodgates or he who removed the reinforcement system?) In terms of honesty, the second is worse, because you are just trying to evade or hide your responsibility in the death of those involved.
In the case of the Egyptians, for instance, God was controlling nature. Nature was just an instrument of God. Satan wasn't controlling it and nature wasn't controlling itself.

quote:
Tom:Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations.
Then you have to prove that killing is always wrong.

quote:
The basic premise is that God gives favor to individuals or nations on the basis of obedience to His law. When an entity is disobedient, then ruin follows
Look, there are emergency situations in which God cannot just sit and expect ruin to follow. Satan didn’t want the antediluvians to die, but to live in defiance of God’s law. Maybe they would have destroyed themselves, but by then there would no longer be a single righteous on the face of the earth. For the sake of those 8 righteous, who would preserve God’s knowledge and the lineage of the Messiah, and for the sake of the antediluvians themselves, who were spoiling themselves and one another, these people must die. You spoke about God restraining the subterranean waters, although you failed to provide solid evidence that God has to continually protect us from nature. But, besides that, it had never rained before. Who sent the rain from heaven? Or was this another thing that God has to protect us from?

quote:
Tom:According to the Scriptures, God killed Saul, and God destroyed Jerusalem. So He did appoint them to destruction.
The Jews are alive and well on earth and will still have a part in the last-day events.

quote:
Tom:God doesn't do any dirty work. God is good. He is just like Jesus.
There is dirty work to be done in order to clean God’s kingdom from evil but, according to you, the dirty work will be done by itself.

quote:
Tom:Or Satan. Shouldn't he be included in the list?
No, I don’t believe God uses Satan as His instrument. He overrules Satan’s perversity and uses what Satan meant for evil to accomplish His purposes, as in the case of Job, or Joseph.

quote:
Tom:According to this way of thinking, God kills everybody.
I believe that God keeps the heart beating in the sense that it was He who implanted the principle of life in our cells, but I don’t think that it is God who stops the heart (except, of course, in cases like that of Ananias and Sapphira). However, I think that God can, sometimes, prolong life.

I'll stop here. This has become a very long (quilometrico) post.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/08/05 04:59 PM

Tom, are you assuming Jesus in the OT and Jesus in the NT are two different gods? If not, then what can we learn about the character of God in the OT? And, in particular, what can we learn about God in the Flood?

Jesus said, "I kill." What does it mean? "God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways ...." Either way it is God who kills and destroys them.

You seem to believe the idea of God killing unsaved sinners is bad or wrong, that it contradicts your view of God's character. Well, what if your view is wrong? What if, as holy angels obviously believe, God killing unsaved sinners is right and righteous? Then what?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/09/05 06:34 AM

Mike, the truth is that the OT God and Jesus Christ are one in the same, but we have misunderstood God. It is for this purpose that Christ came, to teach us the truth about God.

quote:
The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. {DA 22.1}
In order to clear up our misconceptions about God, we need to look at the solution which God gave to our problem of misunderstanding Him, which is Jesus Christ. Even the angels could not understand God correctly until Christ came on the scene. If even they had misunderstandings regarding God's character until Christ came, we can see how much we need the revelation of God's character which Christ came to give.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/08/05 08:50 PM

R: Tom,

While you keep saying that God can’t do this or that because Jesus didn’t do this or that while He was on earth, you fail to offer an explanation for the passages which go against your viewpoint.

Tom:I don't know what this is referring to. I've been offering explanations for hundreds of posts.

R:Jesus couldn’t possibly do everything while He was on earth. He didn’t establish a tribunal to judge anyone while He was here, He didn’t reign as King, however this doesn’t mean He wouldn’t do so at a later point in History.

Tom:Jesus didn't have to do everything while on earth. Just what was necessary to reveal God's character completely, which He did, since all that we can know about God's character was revealed in His life.

Old Tom:This text shows that God's angers is manifest in His forsaking the one against whom He is angry.

R:And Numbers 25:3,4 shows that God’s anger is also sometimes manifest in inflicting direct punishment on transgressors.

Tom:So you see what happened in Numbers 25 to be fundamentally different than Deut. 31? I don't understand the difference. Here's another passage:

quote:
"They come to fight with the Chaldeans, but it is to fill them with the dead bodies of men, whom I have slain in mine anger and in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid my face from this city.
." (Jer. 33:5)

I don't see the difference. It speaks here of God slaying in His anger, and explains this is equivalent to His hiding His face.

R:“The Lord is regarded as cruel, by many, in requiring his people to make war with other nations. They say that it is contrary to his benevolent character. But he who made the world, and formed man to dwell upon the earth, has unlimited control over all the works of his hands; and it is his right to do as he pleases, and what he pleases, with the work of his hands. Man has no right to say to his Maker, Why doest thou thus? There is no injustice in his character. He is the ruler of the world, and a large portion of his subjects have rebelled against his authority, and have trampled upon his law. ... God has borne with them until they filled up the measure of their iniquity, and then he has brought upon them swift destruction. He has used his people as instruments of his wrath, to punish wicked nations who have vexed them, and seduced them into idolatry.

“A family picture was presented before me: A part of the children seem anxious to learn and obey the requirements of the father, while the others trample upon his authority, and seem to exult in showing contempt of his family government. They share the benefits of their father's house, and are constantly receiving of his bounty; they are wholly dependent upon him for all they receive, yet are not grateful, but conduct themselves proudly, as though all the favors they received of their indulgent parent were supplied by themselves. The father notices all the disrespectful acts of his disobedient, ungrateful children, yet he bears with them.

“At length, these rebellious children go still further, and seek to influence and lead to rebellion those members of their father's family who have hitherto been faithful. Then all the dignity and authority of the father is called into action; and he expels from his house the rebellious children, who have not only abused his love and blessings themselves, but tried to subvert the remaining few who had submitted to the wise and judicious laws of their father's household.

“For the sake of the few who are loyal, whose happiness was exposed to the seditious influence of the rebellious members of his household, he separates his undutiful children from his family, while at the same time he labors to bring the remaining faithful and loyal ones closer to himself. All would honor the wise and just course of such a parent, in punishing most severely his undutiful, rebellious children.
“God has dealt thus with his children.” {1 SP 329, 330}

Tom:These passages explain God's motivations. We agree that God's motives are pure, and that action must be taken to counteract Satan's plans. The question is if God uses the methods of Satan in order to accomplish His plans.

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." The Desire of Ages, 759.

"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority." ibid., 22.

"Earthly kingdoms rule by the ascendency of physical power; but from Christ's kingdom every carnal weapon, every instrument of coercion, is banished." The Acts of the Apostles, 12.

"In the work of redemption there is no compulsion. No external force is employed. Under the influence of the Spirit of God, man is left free to choose whom he will serve. In the change that takes place when the soul surrenders to Christ, there is the highest sense of freedom." The Desire of Ages, 466.

"Force is the last resort of every false religion." (ST 5/7/97)

These statements make it clear that force is not a weapon of God to accomplish His will, but rather a weapon of Satan. Force is the last resort of every false religion, but is not the last resort of God, or any resort at all.

Old Tom:You keep flip-flopping on this. You started out saying there was no difference, and I asked you if you didn't think there was a difference, why did you argue so strongly against the idea. And you said, "Can I be honest?" You said you could respect a God who said, "If you are not worthy, I will take your life away." Now you are back to saying it doesn't make any difference.

R:It is you who are not understanding what I say. What I’m saying is that, in terms of responsibility for the act, there is NO difference. In each case, you are the sole responsible for the death of those involved.

Tom:The Spirit of Prophesy says time and time again that the wicked reap what THEY have sown, that God is NOT responsible. God is not responsbile because He can kill them and blame their death on someone other than Himself, but because their own actions bring about their own destruction. She makes this very point many times.

R:(In the example of the dam, which mayor is less guilty of the death of the whole city? He who opened the floodgates or he who removed the reinforcement system?) In terms of honesty, the second is worse, because you are just trying to evade or hide your responsibility in the death of those involved.

In the case of the Egyptians, for instance, God was controlling nature. Nature was just an instrument of God. Satan wasn't controlling it and nature wasn't controlling itself.

Tom:This is a faulty explanation, because it doesn't bring out the role of stubborn resistance involved. A better one is the one which God provided Himself through Jesus Christ in the parable of the murdered Son. Servents were sent to convey the vineowner's wishes, which were murdered. More servants were sent, and they were murdered too. Finally the owner's own son was sent in the hope that he would be well received, but he was murdered too. After all this, God withdrew His protection.

We see the same thing in the case of Satan. It wasn't a one time sin, but continued sin, and continued resistance to the Holy Spirit, continued refusal to repent and be pardoned, which led to his downfall. God is patient, and it takes a great deal of effort to get Him to leave you alone. However, eventually God will give the one who has rejected Him up, exaclaiming, "How can I give you up?"

In regards to the Egyptians, you can be sure that God's Spirit was telling them the whole time to stop in their persecution of the Israelites, that this would lead to their death. They persisted in their rebellion until the very end, but God had no desire that they should die. They died only because they entered the Red Sea, which was a dangerous area to enter, because one could only survive there under God's protection. Because they had steadfastly persisted in rebellion against God, they forfeited His protection. God did not pick up the Red Sea and hurl it at them in order to kill them. They did the equivalent of walking across a busy street, and God did not protect them from their foolish action. If they had not entered the Red Sea, they would not have died. They brought their death upon themselves.

Old Tom:Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations.

R:Then you have to prove that killing is always wrong.

Tom:Which means if I don't then wrong acts are sanatized by right motivations?

Old Tom:The basic premise is that God gives favor to individuals or nations on the basis of obedience to His law. When an entity is disobedient, then ruin follows.

R:Look, there are emergency situations in which God cannot just sit and expect ruin to follow.

Tom:God doesn't have to expect it to follow. It does follow. There's no way it could not follow. If God removes His blessings, then ruin comes that very moment. There's no delay, because it is impossible for there not to be ruin apart from the blessings of God. God must actively do something to counteract the force of sin. Sin is deadly. It is not benign; it is not neutral. It is a destructive force which must actively be counteracted.

R:Satan didn’t want the antediluvians to die, but to live in defiance of God’s law.

Tom:Satan is happy when any humans die because that causes pain to God, whom he hates.

R:Maybe they would have destroyed themselves, but by then there would no longer be a single righteous on the face of the earth. For the sake of those 8 righteous, who would preserve God’s knowledge and the lineage of the Messiah, and for the sake of the antediluvians themselves, who were spoiling themselves and one another, these people must die. You spoke about God restraining the subterranean waters, although you failed to provide solid evidence that God has to continually protect us from nature. But, besides that, it had never rained before. Who sent the rain from heaven? Or was this another thing that God has to protect us from?

Tom:The evidence is in MH 416. There are black holes which destroy, asteroids which destroy, viruses which destroy. God didn't allow the large animals to continue to exist, because man in His diminished capacity could no longer deal with Him. If God did not keep the earth in its course, man would be destroyed. Why does God need to do this? That is, why would the earth go off course? Because of sin. There are so many ways that God protects us from nature, it is mind boggling.

Nature is not self-acting. It must be actively and carefully managed by God. Sin has caused tremendous changes to nature, which has made it dangerous. If it weren't for God's active sustaining and protective care, all life would perish. See the section in MH 416. The principles are laid out there.

I understood your assertion that I had not presented evidence that God protects us from nature, to which I responded. I didn't understand the rest of what you were writing.

I'm suggesting there were destructive forces which God was keeping in check, caused by sin, just as He is doing now. When God releases His protecting or sustaining hand, terrible things happen. This must be the case, unless we believe God is doing nothing.

Old Tom:According to the Scriptures, God killed Saul, and God destroyed Jerusalem. So He did appoint them to destruction.

R:The Jews are alive and well on earth and will still have a part in the last-day events.

Tom:Does this means that God did not appoint Jerusalem to destruction? Were the Scriptures are wrong about this? And what about Saul? The Scriptures say God killed Saul. Wouldn't that be appointed to destruction?

Old Tom:God doesn't do any dirty work. God is good. He is just like Jesus.

R:There is dirty work to be done in order to clean God’s kingdom from evil but, according to you, the dirty work will be done by itself.

Tom:God is pure. He always acts in harmony with the principles of His government, which involves nothing dirty.

Old Tom:Or Satan. Shouldn't he be included in the list?

R: No, I don’t believe God uses Satan as His instrument. He overrules Satan’s perversity and uses what Satan meant for evil to accomplish His purposes, as in the case of Job, or Joseph.

Tom:If I'm understanding your thought, it is that it would be dishonest of God to not destroy Himself. So God does this by using His agents, which are nature, or His angels, or His people. But you admit that God often permits destruction to occur by His permissive action. So how is God not being honest in these cases, where He describes Himself as destroying, but it's really Satan? For example, in the Scriptures, God is presented as *actively* destroying Jerusalem. Since it was not really God, but Satan, who did this, how is this portrayal not, according to your own terms, "dishonest"?

Old Tom:According to this way of thinking, God kills everybody.

R:I believe that God keeps the heart beating in the sense that it was He who implanted the principle of life in our cells, but I don’t think that it is God who stops the heart (except, of course, in cases like that of Ananias and Sapphira). However, I think that God can, sometimes, prolong life.

Tom:The cells do not work in and of themselves. See MH 416. God is active in keeping us alive. He must do something proactive, or else we die. We can't live by ourselves. Our heart doesn't beat by itself; God makes it beat.

R:I'll stop here. This has become a very long (quilometrico) post.

Tom:Ok. I'll await your next response, but I'd like to repeat that I haven't seen any effort to harmonize your view with the fact that everything we can know of God was revealed in the life of His Son. If this is true, then there should be something in Christ's life which reveals the principles you are suggesting. Otherwise the statement would be false, and there are things we can know about God which were not revealed in Christ's life.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/09/05 03:32 AM

Tom, the idea that Jesus revealed everything we can know about God's character overlooks alot. Rosangela named a few.

Are you suggesting that since Jesus didn't kill anyone in the NT that Jesus never killed anyone in the OT?

Even if Jesus kills some people by withdrawing His protection He is, nevertheless, still responsible for their death. Since they would have continued living if Jesus hadn't withdrawn His protection He is, very clearly, responsible.

Do you believe planet earth is a ticking time bomb that would have exploded and killed Adam and Eve, if Jesus hadn't intervened, the moment they sinned?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/09/05 07:13 AM

Mike:Tom, the idea that Jesus revealed everything we can know about God's character overlooks alot. Rosangela named a few.

Tom:Here's frin the Spirit of Prophesy:

quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son...Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. {8T 286.1}
What is the "a lot" which she missed? I can't think of anything myself.

Mike:Are you suggesting that since Jesus didn't kill anyone in the NT that Jesus never killed anyone in the OT?

Tom:I'm suggesting that all that man can know about God was revealed in the character and life of His Son displayed in His humanity. If you "see" something different than what Christ revealed, then what you see is something we can't know about God, because everything we can know about God was revealed there.

The points I'm making are made more eloquently by the authors I've been quoting in the Jesus reveals God topic. The concept is very simple, when we've seen Christ, we've seen the Father.

Mike:Even if Jesus kills some people by withdrawing His protection He is, nevertheless, still responsible for their death.

Tom:No, the wicked are responsible. This is why the Spirit of Prophesy states they reap what they sow. For example:

quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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. (DA 764)
quote:
God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself. (COL 84)
quote:
Pharaoh sowed obstinacy, and he reaped a harvest of the same in his character. The Lord could do nothing more to convince him, for he was barricaded in obstinacy and prejudice, where the Holy Spirit could not find access to his heart. Pharaoh was given up to his own unbelief and hardness of heart. (RH 2/17/92)
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, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control. (GC 36,37)
The wicked die because they cut themselves off from God. They reap what they sow. God is innocent, and He will be vindicated.

Mike:Since they would have continued living if Jesus hadn't withdrawn His protection He is, very clearly, responsible.

Tom:No, God is not responsible, and this is what the whole Great Controversy is about. It is Satan who argues that God is responsible.

quote:
The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, he charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death. Jesus was to unveil this deception.(DA 25)
quote:
To the last, he refused to acknowledge his own course to be deserving of censure. When the consequence of his disaffection became apparent, and it was decreed that with all his sympathizers he must be forever banished from the abode of bliss, the arch-deceiver threw the blame wholly upon Christ. With one accord, Satan and his hosts declared that had they not been reproved, the rebellion would never have occurred, thus making Christ responsible for their course. Thus stubborn and defiant in their disloyalty, seeking vainly to overthrow the government of God, yet blasphemously claiming to be themselves the innocent victims of oppressive power, the arch-rebel and all his sympathizers were at last banished from Heaven. (The Spirit of Prophecy Volume Four, page 318)
From the very beginning Satan has attempted to blame God for what he himself does.

quote:
It is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy. His sophistry lessens the obligation of the divine law and gives men license to sin. At the same time he causes them to cherish false conceptions of God so that they regard Him with fear and hate rather than with love. The cruelty inherent in his own character is attributed to the Creator. {GC 569.1}
Mike:Do you believe planet earth is a ticking time bomb that would have exploded and killed Adam and Eve, if Jesus hadn't intervened, the moment they sinned?

Tom: There's no doubt that Adam and Eve would have immediately died had Christ not intervened. See FW 21, 22. Satan would have died too, without God's intervention. See DA 764 (although in Satan's case, his existence is prolonged not to redeem him, which is not possible, but to demonstrate the principles of God's and Satans governments respectively)
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/09/05 04:48 PM

quote:
Tom:I don't know what this is referring to. I've been offering explanations for hundreds of posts.
True, but you have failed to give a reasonable explanation to many passages, like the one that I quoted in one of my last posts:

“‘Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites,’ was the divine command; ‘afterward thou shalt be gathered unto thy people.’ This mandate was communicated to Israel, not as the word of Moses, but of Christ, their invisible leader; and it was immediately obeyed. ... The men who promptly and speedily executed the divine judgments upon those heathen nations have been pronounced harsh and unmerciful in destroying so many human lives. But all who reason thus, fail to understand the character and dealings of God. ... Then their day of probation ended, the door of mercy was to them closed, and the mandate went forth from Him who can create and can destroy, ‘Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles.'" {ST, January 6, 1881}

It would be ridiculous to say that God removed His protection from the Midianites; or that the idea arose among the Israelites and God just permitted it. Ellen White says clearly that the mandate went forth from God Himself. Besides, she says that the Israelites were neither harsh nor unmerciful for obeying God’s command.

quote:
Tom:Jesus didn't have to do everything while on earth.
Exactly. That’s why it makes no sense to say that He had to destroy someone to prove that it is legitimate for God to destroy. God gave us a whole Bible, not just the gospels. If God destroys in mercy, He doesn’t destroy as an act of force, and this is completely in harmony with His character. Nothing could be clearer.

quote:
Tom:So you see what happened in Numbers 25 to be fundamentally different than Deut. 31? I don't understand the difference.
What do you mean? That God “removed His protection” from the idolaters? Does God have to protect us from our own brethren otherwise they will kill us?

quote:
Tom:These passages explain God's motivations. We agree that God's motives are pure, and that action must be taken to counteract Satan's plans. The question is if God uses the methods of Satan in order to accomplish His plans.
What do you mean? That a father can expel the rebellious children from his house by just removing his protection, or hiding his face?

quote:
Tom:The Spirit of Prophesy says time and time again that the wicked reap what THEY have sown
When God destroys, of course the wicked are reaping what they have sown. Their destruction is their own fault.

quote:
God did not pick up the Red Sea and hurl it at them in order to kill them.
No, God just closed the sea in order to kill them.
There is no protection involved here. The opening and the closing of the sea were acts dependent exclusively on God’s will.

quote:
Tom:Which means if I don't then wrong acts are sanatized by right motivations?
No, which means killing is not always a wrong act.

quote:
If God removes His blessings, then ruin comes that very moment.
It took forty years to come to Jerusalem.

quote:
Tom:Satan is happy when any humans die because that causes pain to God, whom he hates.
Not when the life of those humans causes more pain to God than their death.
PP 99 – “He had delighted to control so powerful a race, and desired them to live to practice their abominations and continue their rebellion against the Ruler of heaven.”

quote:
Sin has caused tremendous changes to nature, which has made it dangerous. If it weren't for God's active sustaining and protective care, all life would perish.
It seems Mike expressed it correctly when he said you think planet earth is a ticking time bomb ready to explode at any moment!

quote:
Tom:Does this means that God did not appoint Jerusalem to destruction? Were the Scriptures are wrong about this? And what about Saul? The Scriptures say God killed Saul. Wouldn't that be appointed to destruction?
No. Both in the case of Jerusalem and of Saul, what happened to them was a result of their own wrong choices. But what happened to the cannanite nations was different – God commanded His own people to utterly destroy them.

quote:
Tom:If I'm understanding your thought, it is that it would be dishonest of God to not destroy Himself.
It would be dishonest to recognize that you need an unpleasant task to be done, but evading doing the unpleasant task yourself. Sodom and Gomorrah’s inhabitants, for instance, must be destroyed – they were like a cancer on earth. But God couldn’t do it, so (I assume this is your view) He used Satan to do it. (Again, this is completely different from what happened to Jerusalem.)

quote:
Our heart doesn't beat by itself; God makes it beat.
Then God makes it to cease beating. Therefore, it isn’t Satan who has the power of death, as the Bible says – it is God.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/09/05 04:58 PM

Tom, when did Jesus, while on earth, withdraw His protection and someone died? when did He command His enemies to punish and kill an unsaved sinner? when did He sit in judgment to determine the fate of mankind? when did He create worlds?

You see, there are many things about God that Jesus didn't reveal while He walked the planet as a man.

Again, we cannot overlook or ignore the plain passages that describe Jesus killing millions of unsaved sinners during the Flood. Perhaps we should read through chapter seven - The Flood - in Patriarchs and Prophets to answer the question - Who or What caused the Flood? Qouting unrelated passages doesn't address the issue very well, does it?

You seem convinced God didn't cause the Flood. But what does it say in the Bible and the SOP? If Jesus caused the Flood then what can we learn about the justice and mercy of God? If He didn't cause the Flood then what does it say about God?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/09/05 05:26 PM

Mike:Tom, when did Jesus, while on earth, withdraw His protection and someone died?

Tom:We see this principle most clearly in the fig tree. Also several parables He tauge explain this principle.

Mike:when did He command His enemies to punish and kill an unsaved sinner?

Tom:When indeed.

Mike:when did He sit in judgment to determine the fate of mankind? when did He create worlds?

Tom:Much of what Christ did and taught demonstrated the principles of the judgment. John B. could do a good job explaining this. He's talked a lot about it. It would be an interesting topic to start.

The miracle of changing water into wine and the feeding of the 5,000, and the 4,000( ?, there was another one of that number, wasn't there?) demonstrate God's creative power, as well as His commanding the temptest cease.

Mike:You see, there are many things about God that Jesus didn't reveal while He walked the planet as a man.

Tom:Nope, there's not a one. As God has revealed to us:

quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.
Mike:Again, we cannot overlook or ignore the plain passages that describe Jesus killing millions of unsaved sinners during the Flood. Perhaps we should read through chapter seven - The Flood - in Patriarchs and Prophets to answer the question - Who or What caused the Flood? Qouting unrelated passages doesn't address the issue very well, does it?

You seem convinced God didn't cause the Flood. But what does it say in the Bible and the SOP? If Jesus caused the Flood then what can we learn about the justice and mercy of God? If He didn't cause the Flood then what does it say about God?

Tom:I see that you are unable to present anything from the life or character of Christ which agrees with your view. But rather than adjust your view and admit it is lacking, you are instead trying to prove that the inspired statement is not true. Interesting.

What the counsel is telling us is to look to the life and character of Christ in order to understand God's character. But you are looking everywhere else *but* there. That's not going to work. Even the angels were confused until Christ came. What makes you think you will be able to understand these things without looking to Christ when even holy angels couldn't?

I have asked you repeatedly to show me where in Christ's life and character in His humanity the views of God's character you hold to are seen. Let's deal with this question first, and then we can look at the other things you're mentioning. (which, by the way, have been treated througout this thread)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/09/05 08:39 PM

Old Tom:I don't know what this is referring to. I've been offering explanations for hundreds of posts.

R:True, but you have failed to give a reasonable explanation to many passages, like the one that I quoted in one of my last posts:

“‘Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites,’ was the divine command; ‘afterward thou shalt be gathered unto thy people.’ This mandate was communicated to Israel, not as the word of Moses, but of Christ, their invisible leader; and it was immediately obeyed. ... The men who promptly and speedily executed the divine judgments upon those heathen nations have been pronounced harsh and unmerciful in destroying so many human lives. But all who reason thus, fail to understand the character and dealings of God. ... Then their day of probation ended, the door of mercy was to them closed, and the mandate went forth from Him who can create and can destroy, ‘Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles.'" {ST, January 6, 1881}

It would be ridiculous to say that God removed His protection from the Midianites; or that the idea arose among the Israelites and God just permitted it. Ellen White says clearly that the mandate went forth from God Himself. Besides, she says that the Israelites were neither harsh nor unmerciful for obeying God’s command.

Tom:I see the underlying principle would be similar to the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Jesus intentionally told a parable which had theological error.

quote:
In this parable Christ was meeting the people on their own ground. The doctrine of a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection was held by many of those who were listening to Christ's words. The Saviour knew of their ideas, and He framed His parable so as to inculcate important truths through these preconceived opinions. He held up before His hearers a mirror wherein they might see themselves in their true relation to God. He used the prevailing opinion to convey the idea He wished to make prominent to all--that no man is valued for his possessions; for all he has belongs to him only as lent by the Lord. A misuse of these gifts will place him below the poorest and most afflicted man who loves God and trusts in Him. {COL 263.2}
If God's people will not keep step with them, then He will humble Himself to keep step with them. The Israelite's steadfastly refused to God's will. This is seen throughout their history. They insisted on having a king; many examples could be given of their steadfast obstinancy. God's choice was to either reject them flat out for rejecting His methods, or to meet them where they were and try to teach them. God chose the latter.

If we would understand God's character, the place to go is Jesus Christ, especially the cross:

quote:
In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light which streams from the cross of Calvary, and in connection with the wondrous, central truth of the Saviour's atonement. Those who study the Redeemer's wonderful sacrifice grow in grace and knowledge. The SDA Bible Commentary, 5:1137.
The purpose of Christ's mission was to reveal the Father:

quote:
The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. {DA 22.1}
quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father.... When the object of his mission was attained,--the revelation of God to the world,--the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men.(ST 1/20/90)
Old Tom:Jesus didn't have to do everything while on earth.

Rosangela:Exactly.

Tom:Hey! Wait! You can't cut that one sentence off by itself. It doesn't complete the thought.

quote:
Tom:Jesus didn't have to do everything while on earth. Just what was necessary to reveal God's character completely, which He did, since all that we can know about God's character was revealed in His life.
There! That's better!

A semicolon would have been a better choice than a period there, but surely you knew that sentence starting with "Just" was completing my thought.

Please don't cut a thought in half and write, "Exactly." That's not fair.

R:That’s why it makes no sense to say that He had to destroy someone to prove that it is legitimate for God to destroy. God gave us a whole Bible, not just the gospels. If God destroys in mercy, He doesn’t destroy as an act of force, and this is completely in harmony with His character. Nothing could be clearer.

Tom:The principle that we have is that all that we need to know or can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son:

quote:
"All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.
What this means is that there is nothing that we either need to know nor can know about God which was not revealed in the life and character of His Son. That's clear, isn't it?

Old Tom:So you see what happened in Numbers 25 to be fundamentally different than Deut. 31? I don't understand the difference.

R:What do you mean? That God “removed His protection” from the idolaters? Does God have to protect us from our own brethren otherwise they will kill us?

Tom:What I meant is that in the Deut. 31 passage it speaks of God slaying in His fury.

If we accept the principle that we can only live by God graciously protecting and sustaining us, and that as long as He does this we continue to live, then the only way the idolaters could die would be for God to cease His protecting and sustaining work. The idolators would not have died had they not rejected God's goodness which was leading them to repentance. God had no desire that they should die, because He takes no please in the death of the wicked. However, if the wicked refuse to respond to His goodness which draws them to repentance, if they insist on going their own way and drive Him away from them, then they will die.

That God did not intend that their fate be to be killed by sword is obvious when looking at the life and character of Jesus Christ. Where in His life do you see any picture which corresponds to the view of God's character which you are holding?

Old Tom:These passages explain God's motivations. We agree that God's motives are pure, and that action must be taken to counteract Satan's plans. The question is if God uses the methods of Satan in order to accomplish His plans.

R:What do you mean? That a father can expel the rebellious children from his house by just removing his protection, or hiding his face?

Tom:The motivations have to with motivations. So no, I didn't have in mind that a father can expel rebellious children from his house, since this is not a motivation but an action. I had in mind that God had to take action for the sake of preservation. Regarding actions, God has options available to us that we do not have, since we are not the Sustainer of the universe, and do not protect from the forces of nature and of the forces of evil.

Old Tom:The Spirit of Prophesy says time and time again that the wicked reap what THEY have sown

R:When God destroys, of course the wicked are reaping what they have sown. Their destruction is their own fault.

Tom:She doesn't make this argument. She makes this one:

quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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.(DA 764)
Old Tom:God did not pick up the Red Sea and hurl it at them in order to kill them.

R:No, God just closed the sea in order to kill them. There is no protection involved here. The opening and the closing of the sea were acts dependent exclusively on God’s will.

Tom:This is a half empty/half full glass argument. I don't see your view to be in harmony with the principles of God's government, nor the inspired statements I have presented. For example:

quote:
The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. (DA 20)
Your view of things appears to me to be diametrically opposed to this principle. It appears to me that you believe that it is exactly by force and authority that God administers His government. Do what He says or He will kill you. But compelling force is to be found only under Satan's government:

quote:
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 758)
God was holding the Red Sea open for the purpose of allowing the Israelites to depart. His power was protecting them from the Red Sea. Had He removed His protecting power from the Red Sea, the Israelites would have drowned. God was under no obligation to continue His protection once the Israelites had reached the other side for a people who had made it clear that they did not desire His protection.

Old Tom:Which means if I don't then wrong acts are sanatized by right motivations?

R:No, which means killing is not always a wrong act.

Tom:This doesn't follow. Here's the exchange:

quote:
Tom:Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations.

R:Then you have to prove that killing is always wrong.

Tom:Which means if I don't then wrong acts are sanatized by right motivations?

Your original statement asserts:
1)To prove that wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations
2)It must be proven that killing is always wrong.

The contrapositive of this is the following:
1)If it is not proven that killing is wrong, then
2)Wrong acts are sanatized by right motivations.

This is elementary logic. My assertion ("Which means if I don't then wrong acts are sanatized by right motivations?") follows logically from your statement. Your statement ("No, which means killing is not always a wrong act.") does not logically follow from your original statement.

Old Tom:If God removes His blessings, then ruin comes that very moment.

R:It took forty years to come to Jerusalem.

Tom:It took longer than that. It took thousands of years. God is longsuffering and not willing that any should perish.

Old Tom:Satan is happy when any humans die because that causes pain to God, whom he hates.

R:Not when the life of those humans causes more pain to God than their death.
PP 99 – “He had delighted to control so powerful a race, and desired them to live to practice their abominations and continue their rebellion against the Ruler of heaven.”

Tom:Satan delights in death in any circumstances. He is the author of death.

Old Tom: Sin has caused tremendous changes to nature, which has made it dangerous. If it weren't for God's active sustaining and protective care, all life would perish.

R:It seems Mike expressed it correctly when he said you think planet earth is a ticking time bomb ready to explode at any moment!

Tom:The earth would be destroyed apart from the loving care which God provides. You seem to be mocking this. This principle is clearly explained in MH 416.

Old Tom:Does this means that God did not appoint Jerusalem to destruction? Were the Scriptures are wrong about this? And what about Saul? The Scriptures say God killed Saul. Wouldn't that be appointed to destruction?

R:No. Both in the case of Jerusalem and of Saul, what happened to them was a result of their own wrong choices. But what happened to the cannanite nations was different – God commanded His own people to utterly destroy them.

Tom:You are asserting that the destruction of the Canaanites was not due to their choice? Their choices in no way led to their destruction?

I believe the goodness of God was leading them to repentance, just as it did the Jews. I believe they refused to repent, just as the Jews, and that it was their refusal to repent which led to their destruction, just as with the Jews. Their choice not to repent led to their destruction, just as with the Jews.

Old Tom:If I'm understanding your thought, it is that it would be dishonest of God to not destroy Himself.

R:It would be dishonest to recognize that you need an unpleasant task to be done, but evading doing the unpleasant task yourself. Sodom and Gomorrah’s inhabitants, for instance, must be destroyed – they were like a cancer on earth. But God couldn’t do it, so (I assume this is your view) He used Satan to do it. (Again, this is completely different from what happened to Jerusalem.)

Tom:I'm surprised that I could have written as much as I have, and you've read all this, and not understand it. My view is that:
1)God does not act contrary to the principles of His govenment.
2)Force is not a principle of God's government.
3)All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
4)Force is the last resort of all false religion.
5)God keeps us alive by His protective and sustaining actions. If He removes His protective/sustaining hand, ruin follows.
6)Destruction is the result of sin.
7)God does not destroy. God is the restorer. Satan is the destroyer.

Your view seems to hold that sin is powerless. It is not a destructive force. It does not require God to intervene to prevent destruction. I disagree with these ideas. Sin IS a destructive force, in more ways than we can imagine. It is only by virture of God's constant protective care that we can live, even for a moment. Not to mention His active sustaining role, which gives us life.

I see the view I hold is in perfect harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and character. He did no harm to those who did not appreciate Him. He simply departed. When urged to destroy, He replied, "Ye know not of what spirit ye are."

Old Tom:Our heart doesn't beat by itself; God makes it beat.

R:Then God makes it to cease beating. Therefore, it isn’t Satan who has the power of death, as the Bible says – it is God.

Tom:
quote:
The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, he charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death. Jesus was to unveil this deception.(DA 24)
quote:
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Death is of the devil. Christ came to destroy he who had the power of death, which is the devil.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/10/05 05:59 PM

Tom, when I read about the Flood in the Bible or the SOP it is very clear to me that Jesus used water from above and beneath the earth to punish and to kill millions of unsaved sinners. The holy angels were not in the least confused by it. In fact, they rejoice when Jesus punishes and kills the wicked. Obviously there is something about it that you are missing.
Posted By: Charity

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/10/05 11:10 PM

Tom, you would get more of the member's attention if your posts were shorter. Me thinks you protesteth too much. [Smile]

Mike suggests you are missing something. I would suggest to you one aspect you're not paying enough attention to is the sovereignty of God. It is God who is the King. He enforces His laws. Everyone will give account to Him. We will all stand before His judgement seat.

Satan wants us to either believe God is a dictator or that He is only merciful. But He is not only merciful. As King, he is also just.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/11/05 02:18 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Claudia: Who do you think is going to be doing this destruction?

Rv:20:9: And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Rv:20:10: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Tom: Thank you for your input Claudia.

It's a bit ironic that Rev. 20:10 is THE proof text used by those who believe that hell is eternal. They argue that this is after all, what the text says. We argue that Scripture must be interpreted as a whole, and taking all of Scripture into consideration, that hell is not eternal, even though here it is.

The ironic thing is that the same arguments they use are being used here, and the answer to the argument is the same.

From The Desire of Ages we read:

quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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.
This brings out:
1)The destruction of the wicked is not an arbitrary act of power from God, but rather something the wicked cause themselves.
2)The reap what they have sown.
3)They cut themselves off from life.
4)The glory of God, who is love, destroys them.

In DA 108 she writes that "the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked."

In COL 84 she writes,

quote:
God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself.
Taking into account the above, it seems clear the answer to your question is that it is the wicked themselves who cause their destruction.

I'll respond to the GC Modern Revivals quote in the response to Mark's post.

I am replying to the above post by Tom that he posted on September 1st particularly the EGW quote which was:

quote:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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.

I am also placing the following that was just previous to the above quote sending at the sentence where the quote Tom posted bagan:

quote:

Then the end will come. God will vindicate His law and deliver His people. Satan and all who have joined him in rebellion will be cut off. Sin and sinners will perish, root and branch, (Mal. 4:1),--Satan the root, and his followers the branches. The word will be fulfilled to the prince of evil, "Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; . . . I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Then "the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be;" "they shall be as though they had not been." Ezek. 28:6-19; Ps. 37:10; Obadiah 16. {DA 763.4}
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.....

Who will destroy the prince of evil? God will as I am certain that the devil will not destroy himself.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/11/05 08:58 AM

Mike, it's true that God used water above and beneath the earth to cause the flood, although from what I've read from both creation science literature and the Spirit of Prophesy (especially Rosangela's post where she cited a section saying God made use of water beneath the earth) it was primarily the waters beneath that were used. I think everyone agrees that it was the water from below which precipitated the flood. The only difference between your position and mine is I believe that God was working to prevent the waters beneath the earth from bursting forth until the time was right, whereas you believe God was not preventing anything but merely acting.

Rosangela agreed that my suggestion was possible, although she sees no evidence for it. I don't know whether you think it is possible or not. The reason what I'm suggesting makes sense to me is that it agrees with the principles the Spirit of Prophesy gives, such as the seven I quoted for Rosangela. In particular, I do not see how you view of God's character fits with what Jesus Christ revealed.

According to the Spirit of Prophesy, all that we need to know of God, or can know of God, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ in His humanity. She also states that every truth from Genesis to Revelation must be studied in the light that streams from Calvary to be properly understood. If you could relate your ideas to either of these two points, that would be helpful.

Regarding the angels being confused, the point you made is controverted by the chapter "It Is Finished". E.g.

quote:

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion.(DA 758)

The angels *were* confused, and it was not until Jesus Christ came to this earth, especially at His death, that their confusion was cleared up. Even for them the death of Christ was necessary to clear things up. This is why I'm interested in your relating the character of Christ, especially His death, to this subject.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/11/05 09:29 AM

Thank you for your suggestion on keeping posts shorter. I looked back over my posts, and noticed that most of them are of acceptable length. However a few of them, in particular some responding to Rosangela are indeed too long. Certainly this last one where I responded to her is. Thanks for brining this to my attention.

quote:
Mike suggests you are missing something. I would suggest to you one aspect you're not paying enough attention to is the sovereignty of God. It is God who is the King. He enforces His laws. Everyone will give account to Him. We will all stand before His judgement seat.
This idea seems to me to suggest that God's laws are arbitrary, as if breaking them was not punishment in and of itself, which is what I believe. Sin (which is transgression of the law) pays it wages: death. This principle is very well explained in DA 764.

quote:
Satan wants us to either believe God is a dictator or that He is only merciful. But He is not only merciful. As King, he is also just.
There's no conflict in the attributes of God's character. God is love. That love is manifest in justice and in mercy. In point of fact, God's justice is His mercy. The following Scriptures point this out:

quote:
"Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isaiah 1:17)

"This is what the LORD says: "`Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed" (Jeremiah 21:12)

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: `Administer true justice: show mercy and compassion to one another. (Zechariah 7:9)

"Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice".( Isaiah 30:18)

Finally in the earlier post I asked you, "So where in Christ's life do we see the destructive character ascribed to God?" to which you reponded, "The clearest example would be in the cursing of the fig tree." to which I demonstrated that the fig tree demonstrated the principle that one is destroyed by cutting oneself off from God's grace, which is what I have been asserting all along.

Hence my question to you from that post still stands: in Christ's life do we see the destructive character ascribed to God?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/11/05 09:41 AM

Daniel, you quoted me at lenghth, but you didn't address a single point I made. All you did was bold a portion from Ezekiel. I don't know why you quoted from from the Desire of Ages to do that. Why not just quote straight from Ezekiel? The words were his, not Ellen White's.

In many instances in Scripture, God presents Himself as doing what He permits. The best answer I know of your quote, where God says He will destoy Satan, is to present what follows from the Desire of Ages, where the Spirit of Prophesy explains in a very detailed fashion what she means. So I'm just reposting what you posted, but since what I'm posting *follows* what you posted, it explains your question:

quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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)
This brings out:
1)The destruction of the wicked is not an arbitrary act of power from God, but rather something the wicked cause themselves.
2)The reap what they have sown.
3)They cut themselves off from life.
4)The glory of God, who is love, destroys them.

In DA 108 she writes that "the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked."

Notice that it is the same thing which results in both life for the righteous and death to the wicked. This demonstrates that it is not an arbitary action on the part of God which causes the death of the wicked, but they bring about their own destruction, just as the Spirit of Prophesy states.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/11/05 05:09 PM

Tom,

You are carrying to an extreme the fact that sometimes God tolerates some things because His people is not yet prepared to understand the whole truth, and implying that God bends to their wishes and does things as they want. It was God who instituted the death penalty under the old covenant and it was God who commanded His people to destroy the canaanite nations. This is told in the Bible and confirmed by Ellen White.
A parable is easily recognized as such, and there is no parable involved here. Ellen White is neither explaining a parable, nor making a parable to explain a biblical historical fact. She makes it crystal clear that the idea did not arise with the people but that it was a direct command of God.

quote:
Tom:The principle that we have is that all that we need to know or can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son:
And as I said, there is no disharmony at all between God’s character and His taking life in mercy.

quote:
then the only way the idolaters could die would be for God to cease His protecting and sustaining work.
What you are saying is that God ceased to protect them from their own brethren, who wished to kill them with swords. Your explanation not only pictures Moses as a monster, but also makes God contradictory. You say that God did not wish them to be killed by sword, but the fact is that He not only commended but rewarded those who performed this act.

quote:
Regarding actions, God has options available to us that we do not have, since we are not the Sustainer of the universe, and do not protect from the forces of nature and of the forces of evil.
Is it correct for a father to use others to expel his children from his house? What does this reveal about such a father?

quote:
It appears to me that you believe that it is exactly by force and authority that God administers His government.
A ruler establishes the rules for his kingdom and gives all his subjects time to accept or reject those rules, telling them plainly that all those who reject the rules will not be permitted to remain in the kingdom. Rebels are not only a threat to the loyal subjects but also make the kingdom an unhappy place. After the time expires, is he using force if he expels the rebels from his kingdom?

quote:
Had He removed His protecting power from the Red Sea, the Israelites would have drowned. God was under no obligation to continue His protection once the Israelites had reached the other side for a people who had made it clear that they did not desire His protection.
He wouldn't have had to protect the israelites from the sea if He hadn't interfered in the sea in the first place. If you build a dam of course you have to protect people from the water, and you are the sole responsible for the death of people if you explode the dam.

quote:
This is elementary logic.
I’m not good at phylosophy, but anyone can see that your logic is faulty.

Wrong acts are not sanitized by right motivations. This is ALWAYS true.
Killing is wrong. This is NOT ALWAYS true.

You can't compare what is true with what is not always true; that's what I'm trying to say. If you want to compare the two then prove that killing is always wrong.

quote:
Tom:It took longer than that. It took thousands of years.
No, forty years after God definitely removed His protection. The point is, ruin was not immediate, which is what you want to prove.

quote:
The earth would be destroyed apart from the loving care which God provides.
Any unfallen planet would be destroyed apart from the loving care God provides.

quote:
Tom:You are asserting that the destruction of the Canaanites was not due to their choice?
Not in the same sense of the destruction of Jerusalem. God did not command the Romans to destroy Jerusalem as He commanded His people to destroy the canaanites.

quote:
Your view seems to hold that sin is powerless. It is not a destructive force.
Sin is so bad that, were it not for God, it would destroy all good and still remain.

quote:
Death is of the devil.
The point is that by saying that God removes His sustaining care so that our heart stops beating, you are virtually saying that death is of God, not of Satan.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/12/05 06:29 AM

Tom, there is no evidence to support the idea that God simply stopped holding in check the inevitable, impending forces that caused the Flood. Even if such an idea were true, it doesn't make God any less responsible than if He had commanded the waters that killed millions of unsaved sinners.

Nature obeys fixed laws. True, God upholds the laws, but He isn't running around preventing the forces of nature from disobeying His laws. As you have pointed out so many times - God is not a God of force.

No, Tom, the holy angels were not confused by the actions God took during the Flood. Yes, they did not clearly understand Satan's accusations until the Cross, but that doesn't have anything to do with God killing millions with a Flood. They rejoiced with Jesus in that the world was purged of evildoers.

Yes, Jesus revealed the character of God when He walked the earth as a man. But to force your favorite SOP quote to mean Jesus never killed anyone in the OT, or that He will not kill anyone in the lake of fire, is putting words in her mouth that do not belong there.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/11/05 09:23 PM

It's my desire to be thorough, yet at the same time heed Mark's suggestion to be brief. The only way that pops out to me to do this is to split up the posts. This one will deal with the logical question.

I wrote:Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations.

To which you responded:Then you have to prove that killing is always wrong.

Your response here does not logically follow. I explained why, which is right here

Your original statement asserts:
1)To prove that wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations
2)It must be proven that killing is always wrong.

Let me stop here and ask if you see this? If not, I'll try to explain it more clearly.

I then continued explaining this.

The contrapositive of this is the following:
1)If it is not proven that killing is wrong, then
2)Wrong acts are sanatized by right motivations.

This may be more difficult to see, but it is, as I stated, elementary logic. If P implies Q, then the converse of Q implies the converse of P. This is exactly what is happening here.

You then wrote, "I’m not good at phylosophy, but anyone can see that your logic is faulty."

I assume by asserting "I'm not good at philosophy" you mean "I'm not good at logic." Given this is the case, how can you follow up your admission with the statement that "anyone can see that your logic is faulty."

There is no flaw in the logical argument I presented. Anyone who understands logic can see it is sound.

Apparently as an attempt to show my logic was faulty you wrote:

quote:
Wrong acts are not sanitized by right motivations. This is ALWAYS true.
Killing is wrong. This is NOT ALWAYS true.

You can't compare what is true with what is not always true; that's what I'm trying to say. If you want to compare the two then prove that killing is always wrong.

I didn't make this comparison. You were the one who jumped from my statement that wrong acts cannot be sanatized by right motivations. This is what I wrote:

quote:
Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations. The end does not justify the means. God does not act contrary to the principles of His government.

"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government."(DA 22)"Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work." (6T 388)"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." (MH 113) ""There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." (DA 487)

God always acts in harmony with these principles. Not only are His motives pure, but His actions are as well; God always acts in accordance with the principles of His government, which are simply that outworking of the attributes of His character. God always acts like Jesus Christ.

It was in response to this that you cut out the very first sentence "Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations" and responded "Then you have to prove that killing is always wrong." which does not logically follow, as I demonstrated.

Basically the simple way to see your response was logically unsound is that wrong acts cannot be sanatized by right motivation regardless of whether or not killing is right. One does NOT have to prove that killing is wrong to assert that wrong actions are not sanatized by right motivations.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/11/05 11:10 PM

R: Tom,

You are carrying to an extreme the fact that sometimes God tolerates some things because His people is not yet prepared to understand the whole truth, and implying that God bends to their wishes and does things as they want.

Tom:God did this time and time again with Israel. "I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts." (Isa. 65:2, 3) Throughout their entire history, they fought against God's will. Trying to figure out God's character by looking at Israel is bound to lead to confusion. Even holy angels were unable to get it right until the revelation of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:20; DA 758).

It is because we have been confused that God sent His Son that we might perceive the truth regarding His character:

quote:
The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. {DA 22.1}
We also have the following quote from the Spirit of Prophesy:

quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. (8T 286)
What this means is that we do not need to go outside of Jesus Christ's life here on earth to understand God's character. Everything we need to know about God was revealed by Him. This is what the whole of the Scriptures teach us. Especially John brings this out. So clear is this truth that non-SDA's have seen it.

quote:
To know Jesus is to know the Father, and to see Jesus is to see the Father. It's that simple....

Jesus is the visible representation of the Father. Everything we need to know about God is disclosed in Him. In knowing Jesus there is nowhere else and no one else we need to look to in order to learn what God is like. (from Is God to Blame? by Greg Boyd)

R:It was God who instituted the death penalty under the old covenant and it was God who commanded His people to destroy the canaanite nations. This is told in the Bible and confirmed by Ellen White.

A parable is easily recognized as such, and there is no parable involved here. Ellen White is neither explaining a parable, nor making a parable to explain a biblical historical fact. She makes it crystal clear that the idea did not arise with the people but that it was a direct command of God.

Tom:The reason I quoted the parable had nothing to do with it's being a parable. That was irrelevant. It was to illustrate the principle that God meets us where we are. Jesus intentionally told a parable which had theological error in it, showing that God is willing to humble Himself and meet us where we are, if we will not keep step with Him.

To know that it is not God's active will that we take up swords to kill our enemies, it is only neceesary to take a look at Christ's life and words.

Old Tom:The principle that we have is that all that we need to know or can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son:

R:And as I said, there is no disharmony at all between God’s character and His taking life in mercy.

Tom:It's true you've said this, but you have not pointed to anything in Christ's life or character which would substantiate what you have said.

Old Tom:then the only way the idolaters could die would be for God to cease His protecting and sustaining work.

R:What you are saying is that God ceased to protect them from their own brethren, who wished to kill them with swords.

Tom:What do you mean "their own breathren?" God ceased protecting the Canaanenites from the destruction they were bringing upon themselves. That's true. Severl generations earlier, God did protect them, because they had not yet filled their cup of iniquity. Now that their cup was fill (they deliberately rejected God, in spite of His revelations), His protection stopped.

R:Your explanation not only pictures Moses as a monster, but also makes God contradictory.

Tom:How is Moses a monster? He was a friend of God. He spoke face to face with God. God and Moses were on the same page.

R:You say that God did not wish them to be killed by sword, but the fact is that He not only commended but rewarded those who performed this act.

Tom:You're addressing God's permissive will. I was addressing His active will.

Say you have a child of age who chooses to do something which you did not wish it to do. Your choice is to reject the child totally, or to instruct the child, even though it's not doing what you want it to do. God chose to do the latter. What's God's active will is is shown in life and character of His Son. *That's* where one should look to see what God is like:

quote:
18No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father's side. He has shown us what God is like.
Old Tom:Regarding actions, God has options available to us that we do not have, since we are not the Sustainer of the universe, and do not protect from the forces of nature and of the forces of evil.

R:Is it correct for a father to use others to expel his children from his house? What does this reveal about such a father?

Tom:Yes, this would be fine. This is dealing with motivations. We're in agreement regarding God's motivations. Where we are in disagreement is that I view that destruction comes when one stubbornly rejects God to the point that He withdraws His sustaining or protective care. You agree that God sometimes does this, but sometimes He acts like Satan. You see the difference as being what God's motivation is, versus Satan's. I see God and Satan as acting differently:

quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. (MH 113)
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/11/05 11:36 PM

By “I’m not good at philosophy”, I mean I don't like philosophy in general, which of course includes the study of logic. However, I have by nature a logical reasoning.

quote:
I didn't make this comparison. You were the one who jumped from my statement that wrong acts cannot be sanatized by right motivations. This is what I wrote:
But why did you say what you said? The truth is this:

R:The difference between God and Satan is in the motivation for destruction (killing).

Tom:Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations.

R: Then you have to prove that killing is always wrong.

You implied that it’s not right for God to kill because killing is always wrong, independently of the motivation for doing so. To which I said, Then prove that killing is always wrong, and you will have proved your point. I think this is logical, isn't it?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/12/05 12:13 AM

quote:
Tom:What do you mean "their own breathren?"
Are we on the same page? I was speaking of the incident of the idolaters of the golden calf – Ex. 32. Sorry, I should have been clearer. It wasn’t in this thread we discussed this, but in the thread “Was Marx Right?” There I had quoted the following text:

"In the name of 'the Lord God of Israel,' Moses now commanded those upon his right hand, who had kept themselves clear of idolatry, to gird on their swords and slay all who persisted in rebellion. 'And there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.' Without regard to position, kindred, or friendship, the ringleaders in wickedness were cut off; but all who repented and humbled themselves were spared.
Those who performed this terrible work of judgment were acting by divine authority, executing the sentence of the King of heaven. Men are to beware how they, in their human blindness, judge and condemn their fellow men; but when God commands them to execute His sentence upon iniquity, He is to be obeyed. Those who performed this painful act, thus manifested their abhorrence of rebellion and idolatry, and consecrated themselves more fully to the service of the true God. The Lord honored their faithfulness by bestowing special distinction upon the tribe of Levi.” (PP 324)

quote:
Tom:Yes, this would be fine.
Yes, this would be fine? A father calling the next-door neighbor to expell his children from his house?
What about the last great day – who will God call to do this at that day?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/12/05 12:14 AM

Old Tom:It appears to me that you believe that it is exactly by force and authority that God administers His government.

R:A ruler establishes the rules for his kingdom and gives all his subjects time to accept or reject those rules, telling them plainly that all those who reject the rules will not be permitted to remain in the kingdom. Rebels are not only a threat to the loyal subjects but also make the kingdom an unhappy place. After the time expires, is he using force if he expels the rebels from his kingdom?

Tom:Earthly rulers act as you say. However,

quote:
"Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?" In earthly governments there was nothing that could serve for a similitude. No civil society could afford Him a symbol. (COL 76)
To understand God's character and the principles of His government, the place to go is not Israel, nor world goverments, but Jesus Christ. It is in His life and character that God is perfectly revealed.

Old Tom:Had He removed His protecting power from the Red Sea, the Israelites would have drowned. God was under no obligation to continue His protection once the Israelites had reached the other side for a people who had made it clear that they did not desire His protection.

R:He wouldn't have had to protect the israelites from the sea if He hadn't interfered in the sea in the first place.

Tom:God opened the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to go through. He used His power to protect them from the Egyptians that they (the Israelites) might learn to trust Him.

R:If you build a dam of course you have to protect people from the water, and you are the sole responsible for the death of people if you explode the dam.

Tom:Picture a million bullets flying around. God protects us from all of these bullets, almost all the time. Sometimes He allows a bullet to get through. That the bullets exist is not God's fault. They exist only because free moral agents have chosen to act contrary to His will.

If God never allowed a bullet to get through, there would appear to be nothing wrong with sin. No cause and effect would be seen. On the other hand, when God does allow a bullet to get through, He gets blamed.

Old Tom:It took longer than that. It took thousands of years.

R: No, forty years after God definitely removed His protection. The point is, ruin was not immediate, which is what you want to prove.

Tom:If I wanted to prove ruin was immediate, I wouldn't say that it took thousands of years rather than forty, would I?

Old Tom:The earth would be destroyed apart from the loving care which God provides.

R:Any unfallen planet would be destroyed apart from the loving care God provides.

Tom:Right!

Old Tom:You are asserting that the destruction of the Canaanites was not due to their choice?

R:Not in the same sense of the destruction of Jerusalem. God did not command the Romans to destroy Jerusalem as He commanded His people to destroy the canaanites.

Tom:He allowed both the Romans to destroy the Israelites and the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. The Canaanenites were as much God's children as the Israelites. He loved them no less. The destruction of both occured only because God's Spirit was stubbornly resisted, which led to His abandoing them, as they forced Him to do (if He would respect their freedom of chioce).

Force is not a principle of God's government. God does not destroy. Force is the last resort of all false religion. All we can know about God was revealed to us by His Son. Every truth from Genesis to Revelation, to be correctly understood, must be interprested in the light that streams from the croos. Any correct theory of the destruction of the wicked must harmonize with these principles.

Old Tom:Your view seems to hold that sin is powerless. It is not a destructive force.

R:Sin is so bad that, were it not for God, it would destroy all good and still remain.

Tom:Evil is overcome by good. It's not the other way around.

quote:
19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.(Rom. 12:19-21)
In a sense, our whole disagreement comes down to this one point. I believe that good will overcome evil, and by good, I don't mean force or destructive power, but love, mercy and truth, which are the princples of God's government.

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)
God will win the Great Controversy using His principles alone, truth and love, and NOT the principles of His enemy, which is compelling force.

Old Tom:Death is of the devil.

R:The point is that by saying that God removes His sustaining care so that our heart stops beating, you are virtually saying that death is of God, not of Satan.

Tom:I do not see removing sustaining or protecting care as equivalent to killing someone. Death exists because of sin, which is Satan's invention, not God's. God has nothing to do with death. Death of is of the devil.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/12/05 04:57 PM

So as to not repeat arguments we have already discussed, I will just refer to a couple of points (by the way, in case you miss them, there are two small posts of mine before this last post of yours).

quote:
Tom:Earthly rulers act as you say. However...
I'm not referring to earthly rulers, but to God. About this, what Ellen White says is:

The Lord cannot give those who are insubordinate a place in his kingdom of peace. Satan and the angels that united with him were expelled from heaven because of insubordination, and men who choose evil rather than righteousness, unite with the great rebel, and they can no more enter the kingdom of God with their characters wholly unlike God's, than can Satan himself become an inhabitant of heaven.” {ST, April 27, 1891 par. 3}

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)

God will win the Great Controversy using His principles alone, truth and love, and NOT the principles of His enemy, which is compelling force.

This text has been greatly misunderstood. When Ellen White speaks of compelling force here, she isn’t at all referring to Satan and the way God would deal with him, but to the other inhabitants of the universe. She is not saying that if God destroyed Satan, He would be using force towards Satan. She is saying that, by destroying His opponent, God would be forcing all the inhabitants of the universe to choose His side. This would be compelling force. Instead, He opted for letting Satan live and make manifest the fruits of his government, so that the inhabitants of the universe could choose God’s side by themselves. Then He could safely destroy Satan.
Commenting on Satan’s rebellion in heaven, she says:

“God sees that the same course of action is being pursued the world over. Men and women come to the place where the road diverges: it is either right or wrong. Thousands upon thousands clothe themselves in what they suppose to be an impenetrable disguise, and choose the wrong. To make their course plain to others by abrupt disclosures would only cause a larger number to choose the side of wrong. Thus the wrongdoers would be sustained and many souls would be ruined. God does not force anyone. He leaves all free to choose. But He says, ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ The Lord will not write as wise those who cannot distinguish between a tree that bears thorn berries and a tree that bears olives.” (18MR 362.4)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/13/05 06:55 AM

R:I'm not referring to earthly rulers, but to God. About this, what Ellen White says is:

“The Lord cannot give those who are insubordinate a place in his kingdom of peace. Satan and the angels that united with him were expelled from heaven because of insubordination, and men who choose evil rather than righteousness, unite with the great rebel, and they can no more enter the kingdom of God with their characters wholly unlike God's, than can Satan himself become an inhabitant of heaven.” {ST, April 27, 1891 par. 3}

Tom:If you include a bit more of the context, it makes it easier to respond. This is why I do the "Old Tom" thing. I've got to go back hunting around to figure out what you're talking about. I don't know, maybe your way of doing things is better, as it keeps the posts shorter, but it makes the post harder for me to read.

Here's what you wrote originally:

quote:
A ruler establishes the rules for his kingdom and gives all his subjects time to accept or reject those rules, telling them plainly that all those who reject the rules will not be permitted to remain in the kingdom. Rebels are not only a threat to the loyal subjects but also make the kingdom an unhappy place. After the time expires, is he using force if he expels the rebels from his kingdom?
I responded to this that this is true of earthly rulers, and presented a quote demonstrating that God's kingdom is unlike any earthly kingdom, and explained how, in particular, the kingdom of God does not use force to get its way. Instead it uses the principles of love and truth because it is a moral government. The quote you have included in no way suggests that God uses force to get His way. God does not use force, because it is not a principle of His government.

The following quote brings out why God does not need to use force to expel His subjects from heaven:

quote:
A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God. (GC 542, 543)
There's no need for God to use force to expel beings from heaven, or keep them out. Those who do not have characters in harmony with its principles have no desire to be there. The presence of God is a consuming fire. They would prefer destruction.

Old Tom:“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)

God will win the Great Controversy using His principles alone, truth and love, and NOT the principles of His enemy, which is compelling force.

R:This text has been greatly misunderstood. When Ellen White speaks of compelling force here, she isn’t at all referring to Satan and the way God would deal with him, but to the other inhabitants of the universe.

Tom:Why would you think God deals with Satan any differently than anyone else? God deals with all inhabitants of the universe the same. He gives His blessings to the just and the unjust. Those who open their hearts to respond to God's love are blessed. Those who steel their hearts against God condemn themselves.

The following quote makes it clear that God does not treat Satan any differently than others, and that Satan's destruction is not due to a use of force on God's part.

quote:
This (the destruction of Satan and those who unite with him) is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God....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 764.1}
Force is not a principle of God's government. "Force is the last resort of every false religion" (7 SDABC 976) If force is God's last resort too, then His principles are the same as every false religion.

R:She is not saying that if God destroyed Satan, He would be using force towards Satan. She is saying that, by destroying His opponent, God would be forcing all the inhabitants of the universe to choose His side. This would be compelling force.

Tom:I don't see her saying this at all. It appears to me you're reading your own ideas into her quote. She explicitly denies that God uses force to destroy Satan ("it is not an act of arbitrary power") but explains that it is his own action which leads to his destruction: Satan places himself so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to him a consuming fire.

It is because Satan's destruction would have been misinterpreted as something God was doing to him rather than as the inevitable result of sin that God allowed things to continue, so the principles of the respective governments could be seen. It wasn't until the death of Christ that these principles were seen, and the destruction of the wicked could be understood.

It is no coincidence that the destruction of the wicked is included in the chapter "It Is Finished". This chapter deals with things which were accomplished by Christ's death. Christ's death made clear what death is. It's not something which God does to somebody, but it's the result of sin. Once this principle is understood, it's safe to allow Satan to suffer the inevitable results of his sin (which is the glory of God results in his destruction), without the event to be misunderstood as something which God is accomplishing.

The principles of God's government are love and truth, not force. "Rebellion was not to be overcome by force."

R:Instead, He opted for letting Satan live and make manifest the fruits of his government, so that the inhabitants of the universe could choose God’s side by themselves. Then He could safely destroy Satan.

Tom:This is not what she wrote. She wrote this:

quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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 764.1}

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. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}

What is the "this" that the angels did not understand? According to your view, it should be that God uses force to destroy Satan, and this is just, because all have seen what the principles of Satan's government are. But is that what she wrote? No! She wrote:

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.

"This" is that Satan himself formed the character which caused God's glory to be to him a consuming fire. *That's* what the angels did not understand.

There's also a problem of God's saying, "Do what I tell you, or I'll kill you." This does not speak well of His character, as well as being totally out of harmony with what He has revealed of Himself in the life and character of His Son.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/13/05 06:59 AM

R:Yes, this would be fine? A father calling the next-door neighbor to expell his children from his house?
What about the last great day – who will God call to do this at that day?

Tom:God won't have to "call" anyone. The wicked voluntarily choose to be destroyed rather than remain in heaven:

quote:
A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God." (GC 543)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/12/05 07:06 PM

R:But why did you say what you said? The truth is this:

Old R:The difference between God and Satan is in the motivation for destruction (killing).

Old Tom:Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations.

Old R: Then you have to prove that killing is always wrong.

R:You implied that it’s not right for God to kill because killing is always wrong, independently of the motivation for doing so. To which I said, Then prove that killing is always wrong, and you will have proved your point. I think this is logical, isn't it?

Tom:Not really. Regardless of whether killing is always wrong does not impact whether or not wrong acts are sanatized by right motivations. What you should have said is that while you agree with the principle that wrong actions are not sanatized by right motivations, this principle does not apply to this specific case because killing is not always a wrong action. That would have been logically sound.

What you actually wrote is not logically sound because it asserts than one must prove that killing is wrong in order to establish the principle that wrong acts are sanatized by right motives.

[ September 12, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Tom Ewall ]
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/12/05 10:52 PM

Sorry Mike, I think I missed your post in the midst of the others.

Mike:Tom, there is no evidence to support the idea that God simply stopped holding in check the inevitable, impending forces that caused the Flood. Even if such an idea were true, it doesn't make God any less responsible than if He had commanded the waters that killed millions of unsaved sinners.

Tom:It makes all the difference in the world. It involves how we see God's character. Is He really like Jesus Christ revealed Him to be while on this earth? Or is Jesus' picture defective? It it really true that sickness, suffering and death come from the antagonistic power, or it is the case that they come from God? Is it really true that force is not a principle of God's government? Is it really true that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Christ in His humanity? These are important questions, and there is a difference between the two ways of looking at things.

Mike:Nature obeys fixed laws. True, God upholds the laws, but He isn't running around preventing the forces of nature from disobeying His laws.

Tom:He is "running" around protecting us from the havoc which sin wreaks. There are black holes, stars dying. The impact of sin upon the universe is indescribably vast. The second law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy) impacts every nook and cranny of the universe. There is no place where God is not at work protecting us. It is only our great ignorance which closes our eyes to the great work God is doing to protect and sustain us.

quote:
We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy.(GC 36)
This statement is just as true in the natural realm as is in the spiritual. To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life. It's impossible to overestimate how much we owe to God's love and protection.

Mike: As you have pointed out so many times - God is not a God of force.

Tom: Amen!

Mike:No, Tom, the holy angels were not confused by the actions God took during the Flood. Yes, they did not clearly understand Satan's accusations until the Cross, but that doesn't have anything to do with God killing millions with a Flood.

Tom:This has got to be one of the most ironic things I've ever read.

Mike:They rejoiced with Jesus in that the world was purged of evildoers.

Tom:This is confusion. They rejoiced that the world was purged of *sin*. One needs to differentiate between evil and evildoers. God was sad that the evildoers perished. This is obvious when one understands His character, and the Biblical record itself bears this out.

quote:
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart (Gen. 6:5,6)
Mike:Yes, Jesus revealed the character of God when He walked the earth as a man. But to force your favorite SOP quote to mean Jesus never killed anyone in the OT, or that He will not kill anyone in the lake of fire, is putting words in her mouth that do not belong there.

Tom:She wrote that *all* that *can* be known of God was revealed in Christ's life and character in His humanity. What I have been asking you to do is to explain how your views of God's character are seen in Christ's life and character. I'm not putting any words into her mouth at all. I've been issueing a challenge to you, which you have so far not responded to.

That your views are contrary to what Christ's life revealed is the weakest point, IMO, of your position. How many times did Christ kill or physically harm in any way someone who disagreed with Him? How many times did Christ ascribe to God some act which led to suffering or death?
Posted By: Charity

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/13/05 03:39 AM

Tom, I agree that we Adventists tend to overlook some of the scripture and EGW passages that you are focused on. So what you are saying is needed. My question is whether you balancing it with the rest of scripture and Ellen White’s writings. I don’t think you are because for example you insist that God’s justice is the same as His mercy, and you do not concede valid points regarding the destruction of the idolatrous Hebrews at the golden calf, the Egyptians at the Red Sea, the antediluvians at the flood. When you are up against some of these points, you resort to the plea that Christ is the full picture – other scripture that appears to show another side to the character of God can be overruled by the life of Christ which is a complete revelation.

You therefore virtually discard large portions of the Bible. Many parables of Christ teach God’s involvement in judging the wicked.

When Babylon is finally judged, the saints are commanded to rejoice because God has avenged their blood. With your theology, I do not see how you will be able to obey that command. I picture you saying to yourself, no, God didn’t do that. How can I rejoice? That was Satan’s work! Those sentiments would be as out of harmony with the spirit of the occasion as it would be for you to stand weeping by the Red Sea for Pharoah and his men while Merriam lead the hosts of Israel in rejoicing before God, and which the Jews today still thank God for – rightly. If God commands us to rejoice in His deliverance, will you weep?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/13/05 05:52 AM

Mark, Before I address your post specifically, I would like to ask a few favors.

The first favor is that you respond to the posts I write. You write a post asking questions and making points, and I answer the post, making counterpoints and asking you questions. It would be nice if you responded in some way.

The second favor is that you read my posts with some care. For example, regarding mercy and justice you wrote of me:

quote:
You say that the justice of God is his mercy and grace.
I never said that! I looked at every post in this thread to make sure, and verfied that I never said this. What I originally wrote was this:

quote:
Tom: I'm certainly in favor of justice. However, there is a difference between God's justice and man's justice. Man's idea of justice is eye for eye and tooth for tooth. It's based on retribution. However, God's idea of justice is based on love, mercy and compassion.

"18 Therefore the LORD will wait, that He may be gracious to you;And therefore He will be exalted, that He may have mercy on you.
For the LORD is a God of justice;
Blessed are all those who wait for Him.(Isa. 30:18)"

God is a God of justice. Therefore He longs to be gracious to us.

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another."(Zech. 7:9)

This is God's idea of justice -- showing mercy and compassion.

You made no attempt to consider any of the Scriptural evidence I presented. You just wrote, "this is confusion". Since you didn't respond to the quotes, I requoted them, and wrote this:

quote:
What we see from the above Scriptures is that justice in Scripture involves setting things right. The way that God sets things right is by mercy and compassion.
to which you respond

quote:
My question is whether you balancing it with the rest of scripture and Ellen White’s writings. I don’t think you are because for example you insist that God’s justice is the same as His mercy ...
which is again something I never wrote. What I actually did write was that God sets things right by mercy and compassion. Do you really think this is incorrect? God does not set things right by mercy and compassion?

In the first post I wrote, "This is God's idea of justice -- showing mercy and compassion." I based this on the Scripture presented, which said "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another." If God says "Adminster true justice; show mercy and compassion" and I write, "This is God's idea of justice -- showing mercy and compassion" this certainly like a reasonable conclusion to me.

Does it not to you? If not, why not? It sure looks to me that I'm simply taking the Scripture as it reads and repeating what it said!

What do you think, Mark? Am I making valid points here, or am I all wet?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/13/05 06:36 AM

quote:
Tom, I agree that we Adventists tend to overlook some of the scripture and EGW passages that you are focused on. So what you are saying is needed. My question is whether you balancing it with the rest of scripture and Ellen White’s writings. I don’t think you are because for example you insist that God’s justice is the same as His mercy, and you do not concede valid points regarding the destruction of the idolatrous Hebrews at the golden calf, the Egyptians at the Red Sea, the antediluvians at the flood. When you are up against some of these points, you resort to the plea that Christ is the full picture – other scripture that appears to show another side to the character of God can be overruled by the life of Christ which is a complete revelation.
1)I never wrote, let alone insisted, that God's justice is the same as His mercy. I dealt with this in the previous post.
2)What valid points am I not conceding?
3)How can there be "another side" of God's character?! You appear to be suggesting that there is antoher side to God's character other than what Jesus Christ revealed.

Here's what the Spirit of Prophesy said:

quote:
The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken.... To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. {DA 22.1}
It was for the reason that God's character was misunderstood that Jesus Christ came! If Christ failed to correctly reveal God's character, then He failed in His mission.

quote:
...the whole purpose of His own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.(ST 1/20/90)
But Christ didn't fail! He really and truly did completely and fully reveal God's character.

quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. (8T 236)
This demonstrates conclusively that there is not "another side" to God's character. Don't you agree? If not, why not?

4)You write that I am overuling "other Scripture" which shows "another side" of God's character, but this seems to me to be backwards. My whole point is that Christ's life and revelation is the complete revealtion of God's character (see the above 8T quote) and therefore if there *appears* to be something in Scripture which contradicts this, that appearance must be in error.

Consider the words of Christ. He said He did what He saw the Father do and spoke what He heard of the Father say. What Christ presented was His vision of the Father. What we see in Christ is what He saw in His Father. Therefore if we see something other than what Christ represented, we are really saying that Christ's vision of His Father's character was wrong.

Mark:You therefore virtually discard large portions of the Bible.Many parables of Christ teach God’s involvement in judging the wicked.

Tom:How am I disregarding any portion of Scripture by believing that it must be in harmony with the revelation of God given by Christ's life and character? I don't understand this.

Here's another quote from the Spirit of Prophesy:

quote:
The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster. In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light that streams from the cross of Calvary. (GW 315)
This is something I have found lacking in this thread. Where is the cross of Christ? According to the Spirit of Prophesy, every truth to be properly understood must be studied in the light that streams from Calvary. How are these views of a destructive God related to Calvary?

I'm not "resorting" to a plea, but reaffirming a principle -- Jesus Christ really and truly was the complete revelation of God's character. It really is true that *all* that man needs to know or can know of God was revealed by His life and character. Therefore any theory we have of God's character MUST be found in His life and character.

So far this point has not been addressed.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/13/05 06:46 AM

quote:
When Babylon is finally judged, the saints are commanded to rejoice because God has avenged their blood. With your theology, I do not see how you will be able to obey that command. I picture you saying to yourself, no, God didn’t do that. How can I rejoice? That was Satan’s work! Those sentiments would be as out of harmony with the spirit of the occasion as it would be for you to stand weeping by the Red Sea for Pharoah and his men while Merriam lead the hosts of Israel in rejoicing before God, and which the Jews today still thank God for – rightly. If God commands us to rejoice in His deliverance, will you weep?
This seems callous to me. The wicked here might be your sister or mother or wife or child. Do you really want me to rejoice while your loved ones are suffering and dying?
Posted By: Charity

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/13/05 02:38 PM

By placing a one-sided construction on the passages you quote, you have arrived at a position where you will not be in harmony with God. It should give you pause.

To answer your last question, it will be no more callous of me to rejoice than it was for the Hebrews to rejoice at their deliverence. Christ said 'Who are my mother and brothers and sisters?' We know how He answered that. Was He callous?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/13/05 05:34 PM

Tom, as you know, I agree with Mark and Rosangela, who I believe are in harmony with the Bible and the SOP. According to your view there is nothing "strange" about acts of God. In a court of law I am considered guilty of murder if I pull the plug on a terminally ill loved one. Some people, however, consider it a strange act of mercy. Nonetheless, I am responsible for the person dying.

Again, Tom, you're putting words in Sister White's mouth. She never, ever said Jesus didn't use water to kill millions of unsaved sinners in the Flood. You are taking it upon yourself to say that's what she meant when she penned your favorite quote. If that's truly what she meant then please quote her in her own words. Where did she specifically say that Jesus did not kill anyone in the OT, or that He will never kill anyone in the lake of fire?

Does the following passage sound like the Jesus you know?

Matthew
10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/14/05 06:30 AM

Mark:By placing a one-sided construction on the passages you quote, you have arrived at a position where you will not be in harmony with God. It should give you pause.

Tom:Doesn't this pronoucement seem a bit popish? "You have arrived at a position where you will not be in harmony with God." Do you disagree? Or do you see nothing wrong in statements such as this?

I am insisting that God really is exactly like Jesus Christ, and that His character was fully revealed by Jesus Christ. So I will only be out of harmony with God if I am wrong about this. Correct?

Mark:To answer your last question, it will be no more callous of me to rejoice than it was for the Hebrews to rejoice at their deliverence. Christ said 'Who are my mother and brothers and sisters?' We know how He answered that. Was He callous?

Tom:Reasking my original question, with a few more: Would you really want me to rejoice at the suffering and death of your loved ones? Would you want God to do this? Do you think this is what God will do? Rejoice while our loved ones suffer and die?

quote:
"People of Ephraim, how can I give you up?
Israel, how can I hand you over to your enemies?
Can I destroy you as I did the town of Admah?
Can I treat you like Zeboiim?
My heart is stirred inside me.
It is filled with pity for you. (Hosea 11:8)

There will be great rejoicing when God's character will have been completely vindicated, and sin will be no more. But God will suffer incredibly when His children are lost to Him forever, more than we can possibly fathom, and He will be looking for like-minded spirits to comfort Him.

quote:
Those who think of the result of hastening or hindering the gospel think of it in relation to themselves and to the world. Few think of its relation to God. Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God. Every departure from the right, every deed of cruelty, every failure of humanity to reach His ideal, brings grief to Him. When there came upon Israel the calamities that were the sure result of separation from God,--subjugation by their enemies, cruelty, and death, --it is said that "His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel." "In all their affliction He was afflicted: . . . and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old." Judges 10:16; Isaiah 63:9. (Ed 263)
Sin and death cause God great pain. He doesn't rejoice in these things.

In answer to your question, Christ said His mother and brother and sisters were those who do God's will. God's will is that we should love Him with all our heart and love our neighbor as ourself. This doesn't seem at all callous to me. Rejoicing while someones child is suffering and dying does.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/13/05 09:57 PM

Mike:Tom, as you know, I agree with Mark and Rosangela, who I believe are in harmony with the Bible and the SOP. According to your view there is nothing "strange" about acts of God.

Tom:I don't know what you mean by this. I assume you are referring to the destruction of the wicked, referred to as God's strange act? And something you think I don't think it's strange? Is that what you are asserting? At any rate, I've never said what you are asserting I said. Perhaps you could provide a quote of something I've written?

Mike:In a court of law I am considered guilty of murder if I pull the plug on a terminally ill loved one. Some people, however, consider it a strange act of mercy. Nonetheless, I am responsible for the person dying.

Tom:

quote:
"The government of the kingdom of Christ is like no earthly government. It is a representation of the characters of those who compose the kingdom. 'Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God?' Christ asked, 'or with what comparison shall we liken it?' He could find nothing on earth that would serve as a perfect comparison. His court is one where holy love presides, and whose offices and appointments are graced by the exercise of charity. He charges His servants to bring pity and loving-kindness, His own attributes, into all their office work, and to find their happiness and satisfaction in reflecting the love and tender compassion of the divine nature on all with whom they associate." The Review and Herald, March 19, 1908.
You can't use annologies from earthly governments to try to prove things related to God's government. That won't work. God's government is like no earthly government; it is not based on the principle of force or "eye for eye; tooth for tooth" but is moral in nature and run on the principles of love and truth. Earthly governments must of necessity be run by force, so we're dealing with two totally different entities here. Do you agree with this? If no, why not?

Regarding the specific example of your pulling the plug, that doesn't fit as a good analogy, because it is not you who are sustaining the life but a machine. Your analogy would have to be something akin to God unplugging Himself, which analogy just doesn't work.

Mike:Again, Tom, you're putting words in Sister White's mouth. She never, ever said Jesus didn't use water to kill millions of unsaved sinners in the Flood. You are taking it upon yourself to say that's what she meant when she penned your favorite quote.

Tom:From previous conversations with you, I understand that my "favorite quote" would be some quote that I repeatedly reference to which you have no response. However, there are several which would fit the bill here, so you could be more specific? Also you are accusing me of putting words in Sister White's mouth, and I have no idea how or why you think I'm doing this. What specifically do you think I have claimed her to be saying where I am adding words to her mouth? Is what you mean by accusing me of these things in any way different than simply saying you don't agree with what I'm saying? If not, you could just say, "I don't agree" and leave it at that.

Mike:If that's truly what she meant then please quote her in her own words.

Tom:What is "that"? What quote do you have in mind?

Mike:Where did she specifically say that Jesus did not kill anyone in the OT, or that He will never kill anyone in the lake of fire?

Tom:Ok, here's a specific question. I'll treat this at the end of the post.

Mike:Does the following passage sound like the Jesus you know?

Matthew
10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Tom:Yes, it sounds just like Him. Here's how the Spirit of Prophesy comments on this from the Desire of Ages:

quote:
The Saviour bade His disciples not to hope that the world's enmity to the gospel would be overcome, and that after a time its opposition would cease. He said, "I came not to send peace, but a sword." This creating of strife is not the effect of the gospel, but the result of opposition to it.(DA 357)
Notice that the "sword" comes about as a result of opposing the gospel, not the gospel itself. This is exactly in harmony with the principles I have been trying to present.

Back to the other point. Actually, rather than responding to it here, I'm going to start another post, because this one would be too long.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/13/05 10:21 PM

(Continuing from the other post of Mike's)

Regarding the destruction of the wicked, this is carefully explained in my "favorite quote"

quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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.

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. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

This quote brings out the following principles:
1)Destruction does not occur due to an arbitrary act of God's power.
2)The rejecters of mercy reap what they have sown.
3)When one chooses sin, death results from cutting oneself off from God, the source of life.
4)Those who reject God's mercy, receive the results of their own choice.
5)Satan, and those who unite with him, so damage themselves that God's presence is a consuming fire.
6)Destruction takes place as a result of God's revealing His character.
7)Reaping the full results of sin means perishing.

I see that these principles are the same that are always involved when destruction occurs.

Here's another favorite quote:

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, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control.

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. (GC 35, 36)

Let's take a look at the principles mentioned here:
1)Destruction occured as a result of reaping what was sown.
2)There was a reaping of what was sown.
3)Satan represents his own work as the work of God. He does this to deceive people into thinking that God is responsible for things he himself is doing, so that they will view God in a false light. (this principle should cause us to reflect on our own views, IMO)
4)God was caused to withdraw His protection.
5)Ruin resulted when God's protection was withdrawn.
6)The benefits of the protection God gives to us is beyond our ability to fathom.
7)When man passes the limits of divine forebearance, the restraint is removed.
8)What happened in Jerusalem is a warning for ALL who choose not to respond to God's mercy.
9)NEVER was there given a MORE DECISIVE testimony of God's hatred of sin and the CERTAIN PUNISHMENT of the wicked.

It appears to me that you, and others who have been rejecting the principles I've been attempting to share, view the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the wicked, as isolated events which do not produce principles which are general in nature. In other words, you think in this particular instance God acted in this way to bring about destruction, but this should not be viewed in any way as a general description of how the destruction of the wicked occurs, but is only specific for this one specific case.

I find this problematic. It seems obvious to me that the Spirit of Prophesy is discussing general principles here. For example, she states:

quote:
The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy.
She gives what happened to Jerusalem as a warning to ALL. Also she says:

quote:
Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty.
Now if your view were correct, I don't see how she could write this. Surely some incident where God were destroying in some different, some more active way, would be a more decisive testimony that this, don't you think? Why would she present a destruction which occurs as God's withdrawing His protection as THE MOST DECISIVE example of how God destroys if God also destroys by more active means?

I have repeatedly quoted from the Spirit of Prophesy where she states that ALL that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of God's Son and asked you to explain how your view harmonizes with this principle, but you have heretofore refused any attempt to do so. Based on this statement, which is really based on John, and actually the teachings of Christ, I must reject any teaching regarding God's character which is out of harmony with what Christ revealed as false. It has to be false. There's not way it couldn't be false, unless Christ's revelation of God's character was incomplete.
Posted By: Charity

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/14/05 03:38 AM

You have basically said you will not rejoice at the deliverance of the saint when Babylon is destroyed. That is directly contrary to what God says the saints should do. You'll recall it is the merchants and great men of the earth who lament Babylon's demise. They do this because they have put their own selfish interests first. If they were just and merciful they would acknowledge that this monstrous system is guilty of the blackest crimes, the foulest vices, the worst practises of the black arts in the guise of religion and the cruellest inhumanity. Babylon and those associated with it will have become the haunt of demons. But how do they feel now that God has brought all of this corruption to an abrupt end? They should rejoice in Babylon’s demise and the fact that God has delivered His people. But do they? Instead, they weep. And you seem inclined to join them, albeit for different reasons. Given this and several other things you have said that several people have validly objected to, I would have to conclude you are not open, at least at this point, to modifying your opinion to harmonize better with what is revealed.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/14/05 05:12 AM

Maybe it's a case of misunderstanding. I will rejoice when Babylon is destroyed. That's a good thing. Babylon is the anti-Christ, a horrible system, which is diametrically opposed to God's purposes. So we're agreed on this, OK? I don't see anything you are describing as God's will in your post that I would not rejoice in. So I'm clear on all charages of this post.

Returning to unanswered questions:

Should I rejoice when you child or sister or mother or wife is suffering and dying in the lake of fire? Is this something you want me to do? Do you believe this is something God wants me to do? Do you believe this is something God Himself well do?

You wrote:By placing a one-sided construction on the passages you quote, you have arrived at a position where you will not be in harmony with God. It should give you pause.

To which I asked:Doesn't this pronoucement seem a bit popish? "You have arrived at a position where you will not be in harmony with God." Do you disagree? Or do you see nothing wrong in statements such as this?

I am very interested in knowing your response to these questions.

Hoping you'll oblige with answers,

Tom
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/14/05 05:25 PM

Tom, once again you have either failed or refused to prove from the SOP that Sister White never, ever wrote that Jesus killed people using the Flood. Please, please quote what she wrote about the Flood. Thank you.

PS – You have very nicely established the point that Jesus sometimes destroys people by withdrawing His protection. Thank you. Now, let’s switch gears and talk specifically about the Flood quotes. Okay? Please? Which one of the many Flood quotes says Jesus killed the Antediluvians by stopping holding back the inevitable forces of nature, impending forces which were ready and eager to spread desolation everywhere?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/15/05 02:20 AM

When dealing with a subject like this, it's helpful to consider the Bible as a whole, or even broader, the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy as a whole, and look for the overlying principles involved. It's as we compare Scripture with Scripture that we arrive at a correct understanding of truth. God does not contradict Himself, so if a given interpretation in a given portion of Scripture would contradict principles established elsewhere, that needs to be taken into account.

Consider, for example, the following Scripture:

quote:
10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.(Rev.20:10)
Non-Adventists like to use this Scripture to prove that God will torture those who reject Him for all eternity. The text certainly seems to be saying that there is an eternal hell where the wicked will burn and suffer without end. How do we answer this text?

By comparing Scripture with Scripture, and looking at the underlying principles. Quoting from the Spirit of Prophesy:

quote:
How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell; that for the sins of a brief earthly life they are to suffer torture as long as God shall live. Yet this doctrine has been widely taught and is still embodied in many of the creeds of Christendom. Said a learned doctor of divinity: "The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. When they see others who are of the same nature and born under the same circumstances, plunged in such misery, and they so distinguished, it will make them sensible of how happy they are." Another used these words: "While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy, who, instead of taking the part of these miserable objects, will say, Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!"

Where, in the pages of God's word, is such teaching to be found? Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage? No, no; such is not the teaching of the Book of God. Those who present the views expressed in the quotations given above may be learned and even honest men, but they are deluded by the sophistry of Satan. He leads them to misconstrue strong expressions of Scripture, giving to the language the coloring of bitterness and malignity which pertains to himself, but not to our Creator. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?" Ezekiel 33:11. (GC 535)

I beg your indulgence in this rather long quote, which doesn't tie in directly to your question. But it fits very well to make the point I'm trying to get across. Take a look who she argues her case. It's not based upon a whole bunch of Scriptures (in fact, there's none, until the very end, and even that was quoted not as a proof text, but to state a principle), but is rather based on principles relating to God's character. And it's a very pursuasive argument (it was this very argument which convinced me the doctrine of the immortality of the sould was incorrect when I was a non-Adventist studying Adventism).

This is exactly the same argument I've been trying to present related to the flood question; an argument based not on proof texts, but on principles. What are the principles? Here are a few:

quote:
"There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." The Desire of Ages, 487.
quote:
"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." The Ministry of Healing, 113.
quote:
"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. (DA 79)
quote:
The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." The Great Controversy, 36.
quote:
"In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light which streams from the cross of Calvary, and in connection with the wondrous, central truth of the Saviour's atonement. (5ABC 1137)
quote:
"All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.
Whatever theory we come up regarding the destruction of the wicked MUST be in harmony with these principles, if it is truth. It doesn't matter what the individual incident is. The principles of God's government are eternal and changeless. And God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is exactly how Jesus Christ revealed Him to be, always has been, and always will be.

So in conclusion, if you look at how arguments are presented in inspiration, whether in Scripture or by the Spirit of Prophesy, you will see that they are presented along the lines I am suggesting (and illustrated above); on the basis of principles, not on the basis of proof texts. This is why I have repeatedly ask you to relate your beliefs to principles, and in particular the principles I have brought out (like those listed above) which I perceive to be out of harmony with your view.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/15/05 04:46 PM

Tom, the Flood does not require proof texts or private interpretation. It's an entire account in the Bible, and it's elaborated upon in great detail in the SOP. There's nothing obscure or symbolic about the language employed to describe the Flood.

Your unrelated arguments against these plain testimonies are irrelevant. Again, I’m begging you, please quote from the Flood account itself to prove Jesus didn’t send the Flood to punish and kill millions of unsaved sinners. Thank you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/15/05 05:52 PM

quote:
Your unrelated arguments against these plain testimonies are irrelevant.
This is what you say, Mike. But this is what the Spirit of Prophesy says:

quote:
"In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light which streams from the cross of Calvary, and in connection with the wondrous, central truth of the Saviour's atonement. (5ABC 1137)
Your principles of interpretations are not correct. The principle of interpretation which is of the divine order is that EVERY truth, to be properly understood, must be studied in the light which streams from the cross.

So what I wrote was NOT unrelated, but provides a basis, the only basis, under which this, or any other Biblical truth, can be rightly understood.

As I pointed out, you will find not one example of your methodology in inspiration (i.e. the proof text method; a listing of texts devoid of reasoning or logical development). The method seen in inspiration is exactly the one I quoted to you from the Spirit of Prophesy. A well reasoned argument based on principles which are revealed in Scripture.

Regarding the flood, we all agree that God caused it. The only difference is I believe that God caused it by removing His protective and sustaining hand; by allowing the fountains of the deep to break forth, rather than continuing to prevent it. We are not given the scientific details as to exactly how God caused the flood. I have come up with a theory based on what I have read in creation science literature and what has been revealed in inspiration, keeping in mind that Scripture does not contradict itself.

If you wish to assert that God caused the flood in some means which is contrary to what I have suggested (His removing His protective and sustaining hand, which allowed the waters of the earth to burst forth) then you should adduce some evidence to support you view.

If one takes the time to think logically about the problem, even from a scientific standpoint what I'm suggesting makes the most sense. The waters of the deep broke forth, which indicates that those waters were under tremendous pressure. If they were under pressure, then all God had to do was remove that which was keeping the pressured water at bay. This makes perfect sense.
Posted By: Charity

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/16/05 01:59 PM

Tom, you asked whether any of the saints or God himself will rejoice at the death of the wicked. God and the saints take ‘no pleasure’ in their death, even in the death of Satan. But are they glad that Satan and those who have conformed their character to his are no longer present to harass, annoy, temp, deceive and destroy? We will all breathe a great sigh of relief will we not?

And we will be glad for the sake of the wicked that they are no longer a burden to themselves. They will see their destiny is fixed by their own conscious choices. They will be suffering the most acute mental anguish, blaming themselves as they see the treasure they have thrown away in exchange for the fleeting pleasures of sin and lust. The saints will love God all the more for not allowing the mental agony of the wicked to be prolonged. Their sigh of relief will not just be because they are not longer subjected to the persecution and suffering inflicted by Satan and his followers on them. They will praise God that the wicked only suffer for the time meted out to them in measure by heaven.

What do you make of the text Tom, that we will judge angels? If sin does all the punishing on its own and God has nothing to do with punishment, how can God along with those who sit with Him on His throne ‘bring every work into judgment’? How can God and the saints claim be the judge of anything in the universe if sin is the exclusive agent of punishment? Isn’t this your postion? If sin does everything how can the Apostle say that God is a consuming fire? Shouldn’t the Apostle say ‘sin is a consuming fire’ instead? Why would it be fearful thing to fall into His hands? If sin does all of the punishing, how can anyone fall into His hands?

Is you logic as sound as you claim? In my view, Mike and others have been providing you with many soundly Biblical arguments.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/17/05 06:34 AM

Mark:Tom, you asked whether any of the saints or God himself will rejoice at the death of the wicked. God and the saints take ‘no pleasure’ in their death, even in the death of Satan. But are they glad that Satan and those who have conformed their character to his are no longer present to harass, annoy, temp, deceive and destroy? We will all breathe a great sigh of relief will we not?

Tom:Of course I agree with this. Why would you think I wouldn't? I'm not aware of anything I've written that would give the impression that I think anything different than what you've written above here.

Mark:And we will be glad for the sake of the wicked that they are no longer a burden to themselves. They will see their destiny is fixed by their own conscious choices. They will be suffering the most acute mental anguish, blaming themselves as they see the treasure they have thrown away in exchange for the fleeting pleasures of sin and lust. The saints will love God all the more for not allowing the mental agony of the wicked to be prolonged. Their sigh of relief will not just be because they are not longer subjected to the persecution and suffering inflicted by Satan and his followers on them. They will praise God that the wicked only suffer for the time meted out to them in measure by heaven.

Tom:I agree with this completely. I would only add that it is God's presence, His character of love, which causes them the most pain. I agree with the principles you are expressing here completely.

Mark:What do you make of the text Tom, that we will judge angels? If sin does all the punishing on its own and God has nothing to do with punishment, how can God along with those who sit with Him on His throne ‘bring every work into judgment’?

Tom:Sin has everything to do with punishment. Sin is transgression of the law. Transgressing of the law brings about its penalty.

For example, say you have a young child, and you give the law "Thou shalt not touch the stove." You establish this out of love, because you don't want your child to be burnt. If the child touched a burning stove, the child would be burnt regardless of whether no not the law existed. The law was given to protect the child from the penalty for breaking it would occur. The penalty would exist whether or not the law existed.

Similarly God has given His law to us as a hedge, a protection against the pain, suffering and death which disobedience to its principles would bring.

Mark:How can God and the saints claim be the judge of anything in the universe if sin is the exclusive agent of punishment? Isn’t this your postion?

Tom:I wouldn't say that sin is the exclusive agent of punishment, but rather that the inevitable result of sin is death.

Mark:If sin does everything how can the Apostle say that God is a consuming fire? Shouldn’t the Apostle say ‘sin is a consuming fire’ instead? Why would it be fearful thing to fall into His hands? If sin does all of the punishing, how can anyone fall into His hands?

Tom:What I think is exactly what is written here:

quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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.

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. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

I've quoted this many, many times and explained the principles here. I'm not aware of having written anything which is in any way contrary to anything here. If I have, please point out some quote, and I'll either explain how I see what I wrote to be in harmony or take it back.

Mark:Is you logic as sound as you claim? In my view, Mike and others have been providing you with many soundly Biblical arguments.

Tom:The logic I was referring to was regarding the waters bursting from the great deep. Yes, I think what I said is logical. Those waters obviously must have been under great pressure to have burst forth the way they did. It makes sense that God was keeping the pressure in check for the time previous to when the waters burst forth, don't you think? It sure sounds logical to me.

I haven't seen Mike present any sound arguments at all, whether Biblical or not. A sound argument should be based on some sort of of reasoning. He just lists texts.

Rosangela, OTOH, does generally present sound arguments. The difficulties I have with her positions are generally speaking not with the soundness of the arguments but with the presuppositions taken.

She is the only one I can think of (who has been opposing the positions I've been presenting) who has presented any sound arguments.

If you have some specific argument in mind, I would be happy to comment.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/16/05 07:38 PM

quote:
As I pointed out, you will find not one example of your methodology in inspiration (i.e. the proof text method; a listing of texts devoid of reasoning or logical development).

Tom, again, the Flood account is not a proof text method. It’s an entire account, a huge portion of the Bible and the SOP.

quote:
The method seen in inspiration is exactly the one I quoted to you from the Spirit of Prophesy. A well reasoned argument based on principles which are revealed in Scripture.

You have yet to quote from the Flood passages.

quote:
I have come up with a theory based on what I have read in creation science literature and what has been revealed in inspiration, keeping in mind that Scripture does not contradict itself.

Now all you have to do is support your theory from the Bible or the SOP. Where does it say God caused the Flood by stopping holding back the inevitable and impending forces of nature? You haven’t quoted anything yet that supports your theory.

quote:
If you wish to assert that God caused the flood in some means which is contrary to what I have suggested (His removing His protective and sustaining hand, which allowed the waters of the earth to burst forth) then you should adduce some evidence to support you view.

Okay, let’s read through the chapter on the Flood in Patriarchs and Prophets.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/16/05 07:46 PM

PP 92
The world was in its infancy; yet iniquity had become so deep and widespread that God could no longer bear with it; and He said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth." He declared that His Spirit should not always strive with the guilty race. If they did not cease to pollute with their sins the world and its rich treasures, He would blot them from His creation, and would destroy the things with which He had delighted to bless them; He would sweep away the beasts of the field, and the vegetation which furnished such an abundant supply of food, and would transform the fair earth into one vast scene of desolation and ruin. {PP 92.1}

Okay, here's where she begins talking about God destroying the world with a flood of waters. So far, there is nothing to indicate that earth was a ticking time bomb eagerly striving against the hand of God to wreak havoc everywhere. It simply says, "I will destroy ..." and "He would blot ..."
Posted By: Charity

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/16/05 08:13 PM

Mike is giving you direct quotes that you interpret to fit your views. But you claim he says nothing logical?

I’m glad to see you’re starting to make some allowance for the role of God and the saints in dealing with sin.

Your past posts gave the impression that you give sin a God-like role; this characterization not only attributes the wrong character traits to God, it also alters the scriptural traits of character ascribed to Satan. For example, how can Satan be called the ‘destroyer’ in scripture if sin is actually the destroyer? Another example: You claim to be rehabilitating the character of God, undoing the misguided work of many Christians and Adventists, but are you not effectively placing God in a less favourable light by claiming that He really does not deliver the saints, He simply allows sin to take it’s course. And are you not making Satan out to be really not so bad as he might seem by saying he really is not the destroyer portrayed in Scripture? You say sin is the destroyer and that Satan is merely the temper don’t you? And you say God does not directly deliver His people. He only removes his protection to allow sin to destroy His enemies.

But Christ is a saviour, not only from sin, He saves us from our enemies. This is throughout scripture. We are the special objects of God’s active care and He has given nations and tribes in exchange for the life of His people. He will do the same at the end in the case of Babylon.

I’ll give more thought to the role of Christ in the investigative judgment and the role of the saints in the millennial judgment. I will plan to comment later on how these fit in with how God deals with sin (as opposed to sin dealing with sin on its own) but I am out of time.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/16/05 09:21 PM

Mark:Mike is giving you direct quotes that you interpret to fit your views. But you claim he says nothing logical?

Tom:I stated I didn't see any sound arguments from anyone except Rosangeala. In order to have a logical argument, you have to an argument to start with. An argument should start with a premise, and then have conclusions which are arrived at through some process of reasoning. Only Rosangela has been doing this on this thread, that I can perceive. I think Mike has presented sound arguments on the other thread (the temptation one). Even though I don't completely agree with what he's been saying, he has been presenting evidence and reasoning from cause to effect. Again, I haven't see anyone do this on this thread, excepting Rosangela (i.e. anyone opposing the view I've been presenting).

Mark:I’m glad to see you’re starting to make some allowance for the role of God and the saints in dealing with sin.

Tom:I'm glad to see you're starting to read what I'm actually writing! Thank you! I haven't changed my view, or "allowances".

Mark:Your past posts gave the impression that you give sin a God-like role; this characterization not only attributes the wrong character traits to God, it also alters the scriptural traits of character ascribed to Satan. For example, how can Satan be called the ‘destroyer’ in scripture if sin is actually the destroyer?

Tom:Satan and sin are united in inspiration. Here's an example of the concept:

quote:
The time of trouble is the crucible that is to bring out Christ-like characters. It is designed to lead the people of God to renounce Satan and his temptations. The last conflict will reveal Satan to them in his true character, that of a cruel tyrant, and it will do for them what nothing else could do, uproot him entirely from their affections. For to love and cherish sin, is to love and cherish its author, that deadly foe of Christ. When they excuse sin and cling to perversity of character, they give Satan a place in their affections, and pay him homage. The Review and Herald, August 12, 1884.
Regarding the role of sin in the destruction of the wicked, it's spelled out in detail in DA 764.

Mark:Another example: You claim to be rehabilitating the character of God, undoing the misguided work of many Christians and Adventists, but are you not effectively placing God in a less favourable light by claiming that He really does not deliver the saints, He simply allows sin to take it’s course.

Tom:I do wish you would stop making false statements regarding me. Really! I've made no such claim as you are attributing to me. I haven't called anyone misguided, or called anyone names of any sort. You've been the one doing this. I've asked you repeatedly to comment on the following:

quote:
By placing a one-sided construction on the passages you quote, you have arrived at a position where you will not be in harmony with God. It should give you pause.

To which I asked:Doesn't this pronoucement seem a bit popish? "You have arrived at a position where you will not be in harmony with God." Do you disagree? Or do you see nothing wrong in statements such as this?

I am very interested in knowing your response to these questions.

This is at least the third time I've asked you this.

You have misrepresented my positions and then made very strong pronouncements against your own mispresentations! I ask you if you think this is OK, but you don't answer. I ask you for quotes for you to establish your misrepresentations of my positions, but you don't produce any, don't make any retractions, and come up with new pronouncements and new misrepresentations!

Instead of doing this, why not deal with the substantive issues? I presented a list of principles which I stated must be in harmony with any view of the destruction of the wicked. Do you disagree with this? If not, why do the principles not apply? If so, then please demonstrate how your idea of things fits in with these principles.

In particular, consider the following:

quote:
"In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light which streams from the cross of Calvary, and in connection with the wondrous, central truth of the Saviour's atonement. Those who study the Redeemer's wonderful sacrifice grow in grace and knowledge." The SDA Bible Commentary, 5:1137
How do your ideas fit in with this? Or this one:

quote:
"All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.
How do your ideas fit in with Christ's revelation of God's character? You suggested the fig tree incident, but I explained that was in harmony with the principles I have stated; that God withdraws His grace (as stated in the Desire of Ages). You made no comment, and have adduced nothing in Christ's life or character to support your views. I'd like to see an attempt to do this. Especially tied into the cross would be nice, since according to the above quote there is NO truth we can understand apart from the light streaming from the cross.

Mark:And are you not making Satan out to be really not so bad as he might seem by saying he really is not the destroyer portrayed in Scripture? You say sin is the destroyer and that Satan is merely the temper don’t you?

Tom:No, I don't say this. Produce some quote, please.

Mark:And you say God does not directly deliver His people.

Tom:No, I've never said this. Please provide some quote.

Mark:He only removes his protection to allow sin to destroy His enemies.

Tom:Where have I said this? Please provide some quote.

Mark:But Christ is a saviour, not only from sin, He saves us from our enemies. This is throughout scripture.

Tom:Of course. I can only conclude you have not read what I've written, or paid attention to what was written, to have the idea I've said anything that in any way controverts this. Please produce some quote to explain what misled you. If I through some poor choice of words have badly stated something, I'll correct it, but I feel very confident I've never written anything which should have led you to such an erroneous conclusion as to what I intended, and would ask for some quote to show otherwise, if I'm at fault and have badly stated something. I can assure you I have never believed what you are attributing to me.

Mark: We are the special objects of God’s active care and He has given nations and tribes in exchange for the life of His people. He will do the same at the end in the case of Babylon.

Tom:We are certainly the special objects of God's active care, which is a point I've made many times. I don't know what you meant by the part that followed.

Mark:I’ll give more thought to the role of Christ in the investigative judgment and the role of the saints in the millennial judgment. I will plan to comment later on how these fit in with how God deals with sin (as opposed to sin dealing with sin on its own) but I am out of time.

Tom:Ok. I'll look forward to that. It's a subject well worth study, and I'll be glad to read what you have to say.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/16/05 09:28 PM

Mike, you would agree that the waters which burst forth from the great depth were under great pressure, wouldn't you? Well, let me stop there. Just one question. Then we'll go from there.

Also I'd be interested to see you develop your ideas in a way which take into account the principles I laid out a couple of posts above.

Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/17/05 05:34 PM

Under great pressure? Ready to burst forth? Super naturally held back by God? Where are such ideas indicated in the Bible or the SOP? Quotes, please. Let's turn to the facts, okay.

We can theorize all day long, but nothing beats the truth. Here's more of what it says in the SOP about the Flood. Again, there's nothing about God stopping holding back the inevitable forces of nature, forces chomping at the bit and eager to kill and destroy.

PP 99
But upon the eighth day dark clouds overspread the heavens. There followed the muttering of thunder and the flash of lightning. Soon large drops of rain began to fall. The world had never witnessed anything like this, and the hearts of men were struck with fear. All were secretly inquiring, "Can it be that Noah was in the right, and that the world is doomed to destruction?" Darker and darker grew the heavens, and faster came the falling rain. The beasts were roaming about in the wildest terror, and their discordant cries seemed to moan out their own destiny and the fate of man. Then "the fountains of the great deep" were "broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Water appeared to come from the clouds in mighty cataracts. Rivers broke away from their boundaries, and overflowed the valleys. Jets of water burst from the earth with indescribable force, throwing massive rocks hundreds of feet into the air, and these, in falling, buried themselves deep in the ground. {PP 99.1}
Posted By: Charity

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/18/05 02:43 AM

Tom, by my re-stating what you seem to be saying, I am asking you to look at the implications of your position. You’ll have to trust me on that.

In the investigative judgment, God decides who will be written in the book of life and who will not. This tells us that sin is not merely taking its course. God is in control of who is pardoned and who is not. Those who are pardoned by God (and the Jews were right; only God can pardon sin) escape the inevitable results of sin – suffering and death.

In the millennial judgment, the saints and Christ decide whether the initial decisions of the investigative judgment were correct. They also decide what the punishment will be for the wicked. In both the case of the investigative judgment and in the case of the millennial judgment, the sentence is pronounced against the wicked, not by sin itself, but by God and those who reign with him. That is why I asked you those earlier questions:

quote:
What do you make of the text Tom, that we will judge angels? If sin does all the punishing on its own and God has nothing to do with punishment, how can God along with those who sit with Him on His throne ‘bring every work into judgment’? How can God and the saints claim be the judge of anything in the universe if sin is the exclusive agent of punishment?
My point is that God will be and is actively involved in the punishment of the wicked, just as He is in the deliverance of the saints.

I agree with you that our present pain and suffering are the result of sin in general. And as I’ve said before, I think you are bringing some points forward that need greater attention. For example that God is not vindictive, that the consuming fire of God is love, that sin brings death, that God does not take pleasure in destroying His enemies, etc. But you go too far and your position implies that there is no real meaning to texts that tell us that vengeance belongs to God.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/18/05 03:10 AM

EGW quotes on both sides of the equation have been interesting, however, no matter how one states it, or even how it happens, whether or not God does it this way or that way, it is still God who does it, or causes it to happen, particularly in the case of The Flood.

Why not also think about this in the reverse.

Who created this world? How did He do it?

Who made the dry land appear? How did He do it?

Who divided the waters from the waters? How did He do it?

Now to the questions pertaining this Who or What caused the Flood? topic.

Who caused The Flood? How did He do it?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/18/05 06:52 AM

Mark, you wrote:By placing a one-sided construction on the passages you quote, you have arrived at a position where you will not be in harmony with God. It should give you pause.

To which I asked:Doesn't this pronoucement seem a bit popish? "You have arrived at a position where you will not be in harmony with God." Do you disagree? Or do you see nothing wrong in statements such as this?

I don't perceive you have answered this question. It doesn't appear that you first comment is addressing this, but that might have been your intent, I don't know.

I would like an answer to my question, which is if you think the type of pronoucements you have been making are proper. I don't think they are.

For example, you wrote:

quote:
You claim to be rehabilitating the character of God, undoing the misguided work of many Christians and Adventists
I never made any such claim! You should either retract your statement, or produce some quote. If you think accusations like this are "restating my position" you are taking gross liberties here. Once again, if you're going to make accuasations like this, then you should adduce some evidence. "Extraordinary accusations require extraordinary proof." as Lance Armstrong says.

As far as I'm aware, I haven't spoken ill of any of you. I get frustrated when nobody considers the arguments I'm making (except Rosangela) and proceed in what I perceive to be a non-logical fashion. However, I haven't made any pronouncements against any of you. I have no reason to believe any of you aren't right with the Lord, searching for truth, as much as I am.

None of us have the whole picture. The point of these disucssions, in my mind, is to search together, presenting evidence for the positions we hold, and asking questions regarding the positions we disagree with. Accusing the positions of another without presenting any evidence has, throghout history, not been the position of the side of truth, as has been shown over and over again.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/18/05 07:28 AM

Mark:Tom, by my re-stating what you seem to be saying, I am asking you to look at the implications of your position. You’ll have to trust me on that.

Tom:I think restating another's position is a good thing to do, but for a different reason than you have given. It's a good technique to use to verify that you've correctly understood what the other person is saying. In my case, you haven't. There's no reason for me to look at the implications of your restatements of my position if they do not reflect my actual positon, is there?

Mark:In the investigative judgment, God decides who will be written in the book of life and who will not.

Tom: Sure God does this, but not in an arbitrary fashion. In other words, the books of heaven reflect the reality of the situation. His judgments are descriptive; they agree exactly with the facts of the case.

Mike:This tells us that sin is not merely taking its course. God is in control of who is pardoned and who is not.

Tom:Not really. Those who choose their course are in charge of who is pardoned and who is not. Unless we're Calvinists. God has given us freedom of choice, and WE choose whether we will be pardoned or not. This is the Arminian tradition.

Mike:Those who are pardoned by God (and the Jews were right; only God can pardon sin) escape the inevitable results of sin – suffering and death.

Tom:God pardons all who choose to be pardoned. Only those who refuse the wooing of His Spirit will not be pardoned:

quote:
The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. (DA 176)
Mark:In the millennial judgment, the saints and Christ decide whether the initial decisions of the investigative judgment were correct.

Tom:This makes sense to me.

Mark:They also decide what the punishment will be for the wicked. In both the case of the investigative judgment and in the case of the millennial judgment, the sentence is pronounced against the wicked, not by sin itself, but by God and those who reign with him.

Tom:Are these judgements prescriptive or descriptive? The same question applies in general to the pronoucements of the law. Are they arbitrary?

For example, consider the law "Thou shalt not touch the stove" given to a young child. This law is given as a law to protect the child from the effects if breaking it. This child will be burnt if the child touches a stove which is on. To avoid this, the law is given. Whether or not the law is given, the effects of breaking it would exist. Giving the law does not add the penalty of not observing it; that penalty was always there.

Similary, the effects of lying, stealing, or any of the other commandments have always been ruin, destruction and death. God did not do something to make this things bad, but gave the law to protect us from the effects of breaking it.

Ty Gibson remarks:

quote:
God's law in not a list of arbitary rules concocted by a picky control freak who wants everything to go His way. It is simply the only way to live in harmony with love, and to live in love is the only way to perpetutate life into eternity. Sin is not merely an alternative way of doing things which happens to be contrary to God's opinion. Sin is violation of the life-sustaining principle of love spelled out in God's law. All sin, therefore, is selfishness at root level...

The right way is right because it is sustains life. The wrong way is wrong because it destroys life. There is absolutely no arbitrary element in God's character. Things are the way they are because they are, by very nature, that way, and must by that way in order for life to flourish. Do not hear God saying, "If you sin, I'll kill you; but if you do things My way, I'll let you live." Rather, hear Him speak the true reality of the matter: "If you pursue sin, it will destroy you; but if you turn to Me and embrace My lofe, that love will restore and sustain you for all eternity.

God's law=love=life.
Sin=selfishness=death.

(See With New Eyes pp. 89-90; emphasis mine)

I'm quoting Ty Gibson because you have spoken favorably of him in the past. As far as I am aware, I agree with all the principles he sets forth in his books.

Mark: That is why I asked you those earlier questions:

Old Mark:What do you make of the text Tom, that we will judge angels? If sin does all the punishing on its own and God has nothing to do with punishment, how can God along with those who sit with Him on His throne ‘bring every work into judgment’? How can God and the saints claim be the judge of anything in the universe if sin is the exclusive agent of punishment?

Mark:My point is that God will be and is actively involved in the punishment of the wicked, just as He is in the deliverance of the saints.

Tom:I agree God is involved. I believe DA 764 sets forth how quite clearly. I agree with what Ty Gibson has written about the destruction of the wicked. If you agree with him, then we are in agreement. If you disagree, then we're not.

Mark:I agree with you that our present pain and suffering are the result of sin in general. And as I’ve said before, I think you are bringing some points forward that need greater attention. For example that God is not vindictive, that the consuming fire of God is love, that sin brings death, that God does not take pleasure in destroying His enemies, etc. But you go too far and your position implies that there is no real meaning to texts that tell us that vengeance belongs to God.

Tom:The thoughts are not original to me. Romans 12 explains that God's vengeance is overcoming evil with good. This Paul got from the Sermon on the Mount. I agree with what Paul wrote. I agree with Ty Gibson's thoughts on this.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/18/05 07:42 AM

Daniel:EGW quotes on both sides of the equation have been interesting, however, no matter how one states it, or even how it happens, whether or not God does it this way or that way, it is still God who does it, or causes it to happen, particularly in the case of The Flood.

Tom:The Scriptures present God as doing that which He permits. There are many, many examples of this. To merely state that "God did it" is not helpful; it provides no useful information in and of itself.

For example, God destroyed Jerusalem. The Spirit of Prophesy tells us that holy angels of God took apart the stones of the temple one by one. Yet if we read the first chapter of The Great Controversy we see that God did not actively do anything to destroy Jerusalem. All He did was to permit that those who had chosen to be under the control of Satan should have their way.

To say "God did it" is as helpful as asserting hell is eternal because Rev. 20:10 says "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." We must take in mind the various principles of inspiration, and bear in mind that God does not contradict Himself.

For example, consider these principles:

quote:
"There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." The Desire of Ages, 487.
quote:
"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." The Ministry of Healing, 113.
quote:
"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. (DA 79)
quote:
The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." The Great Controversy, 36.
quote:
"In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light which streams from the cross of Calvary, and in connection with the wondrous, central truth of the Saviour's atonement. (5ABC 1137)
quote:
"All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.
How does your statement "God did it" tie in with these principles?

Daniel:Why not also think about this in the reverse.

Who created this world? How did He do it?

Who made the dry land appear? How did He do it?

Who divided the waters from the waters? How did He do it?

Now to the questions pertaining this Who or What caused the Flood? topic.

Who caused The Flood? How did He do it?

Tom:The flood was different in principle than all the other events because the act of creation was not destructive. As an act of creation, there was not contradiction either apparent or actual to the following principle, for example:

quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer. The Ministry of Healing, 113.
So to discuss God's creation in no way deals with the discussion of the flood. At least, I see no connection. If you see one, please explain it.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/18/05 08:32 AM

Mike:Under great pressure? Ready to burst forth? Super naturally held back by God? Where are such ideas indicated in the Bible or the SOP? Quotes, please. Let's turn to the facts, okay.

Tom: Ok. Here's a quote:

quote:
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. (Gen. 7:11, 12)
This is from www.creationism.org

quote:
Actually, in Genesis, chapter 7 it states that the waters rose higher in respect to the land for 150 days, and went down for the subsequent 150 days. The total time of the Great Flood was about 1 year in length from when Noah's family entered till they left the Ark. That's what it has always clearly stated. Period. But it also appears to have rained pretty darned hard for the first 40 days and nights of this pivotal time (and there were strong winds, Gen. 8:1). There is clearly no evidence that rain caused the Flood and modern creationists have never contended this.Forgive me here, but only evolutionists keep this false notion propped up in order to openly distain creation theory including the Flood.(emphasis mine)
The Scriptures say that waters broke forth from the great deep. It seems logical to me that these waters were under great pressure. If they were under great pressure, then it stands to follow that God was holding back that pressure, until the waters broke forth.

This is just an idea. Inspiration doesn't tell us exactly how the flood occured. What we do know is that the principles of God are eternal; He doesn't change. Inspiration doesn't contradict itself.

Here are some more quotes:

quote:
There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." The Desire of Ages, 487.
quote:
"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." The Ministry of Healing, 113.
quote:
"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. (DA 79)
quote:
The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." The Great Controversy, 36.
quote:
In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light which streams from the cross of Calvary, and in connection with the wondrous, central truth of the Saviour's atonement. (5ABC 1137)
quote:
"All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.
You seem to think that these quotes are "unrelated," but this idea is very much in error. It should be evident that a statement like

quote:
In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light which streams from the cross of Calvary, and in connection with the wondrous, central truth of the Saviour's atonement.
cannot be dismissed as "unrelated."

I've asked you repeatedly to explain how your theory of things agrees with the above quotes, but you have heretofore refused to even make an attempt to do so.

We don't know the specifics of how the flood took place. I don't claim to know any more than anybody else about this. However, I believe inspiration does not contradict itself, and whatever happened will be in harmony with what I've quoted above.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/19/05 06:11 AM

Tom, in your post to Mark you used the name Mike. And, who is Daniel? Do you mean Daryl? By the way, it would appear that Ty Gibson subscribes to the idea that God does not, has not, and will not destroy. In a conversation, about 20 years ago, Ty commented on the Flood, “Satan was like a mad scientist whose experiment had gone wrong, and he feared for his own life.”

quote:
This is just an idea. Inspiration doesn't tell us exactly how the flood occured. What we do know is that the principles of God are eternal; He doesn't change. Inspiration doesn't contradict itself.

Tom! Tom! Tom! Listen to yourself, please. You are building an entire theory based on “just an idea”. What does the Bible say about it?

2 Peter
1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Just because you say the Bible or the SOP do not clearly explain how God caused the Flood doesn’t make it so. Again, she says, “Then ‘the fountains of the great deep’ were ‘broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.’ Water appeared to come from the clouds in mighty cataracts. Rivers broke away from their boundaries, and overflowed the valleys. Jets of water burst from the earth with indescribable force, throwing massive rocks hundreds of feet into the air, and these, in falling, buried themselves deep in the ground.”

Do you suspect that these “mighty cataracts” were being unnaturally held back by God, too? You seem to discount the rain in your attempt to explain the Flood story in the Bible and the SOP.

PP 101
Love, no less than justice, demanded that God's judgments should put a check on sin. The avenging waters swept over the last retreat, and the despisers of God perished in the black depths. {PP 100.3}

"By the word of God . . . the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:5-7. Another storm is coming. The earth will again be swept by the desolating wrath of God, and sin and sinners will be destroyed. {PP 101.1}

Inspiration plainly tells us that the Flood was caused by the “word of God.” And yet you seem to believe it was caused by God merely withdrawing His hand and allowing nature to run its natural course, which, you admit, is just an idea.

Inspiration also says “by the same word” the world is kept in store until God destroys it with fire. Do you also suspect that this fire, which comes “down from God out of heaven” (Rev 20:9), is bursting at the seams somewhere in the heavens, ready and eager to destroy the world?

PP 103, 104
In Noah's day philosophers declared that it was impossible for the world to be destroyed by water; so now there are men of science who endeavor to show that the world cannot be destroyed by fire--that this would be inconsistent with the laws of nature. But the God of nature, the Maker and Controller of her laws, can use the works of His hands to serve His own purpose. {PP 103.2}

When great and wise men had proved to their satisfaction that it was impossible for the world to be destroyed by water, when the fears of the people were quieted, when all regarded Noah's prophecy as a delusion, and looked upon him as a fanatic--then it was that God's time had come. "The fountains of the great deep" were "broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened," and the scoffers were overwhelmed in the waters of the Flood. With all their boasted philosophy, men found too late that their wisdom was foolishness, that the Lawgiver is greater than the laws of nature, and that Omnipotence is at no loss for means to accomplish His purposes. {PP 103.3}

Here she plainly says God, contrary to the laws of nature, used the forces of nature to serve His own purpose. There is absolutely nothing about this insight to suggest that nature would have destroyed mankind if God hadn’t mercifully held her in check.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/19/05 06:15 AM

quote:
I've asked you repeatedly to explain how your theory of things agrees with the above quotes, but you have heretofore refused to even make an attempt to do so.

Here’s why, Tom. What you claim we cannot know is described in amazing detail.

PP 109, 110
The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters gushing from the earth united with the waters from heaven to accomplish the work of desolation. Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities. These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. As men have beheld burning mountains pouring forth fire and flames and torrents of melted ore, drying up rivers, overwhelming populous cities, and everywhere spreading ruin and desolation, the stoutest heart has been filled with terror and infidels and blasphemers have been constrained to acknowledge the infinite power of God. {PP 109.1}

Said the prophets of old, referring to scenes like these: "Oh that Thou wouldest rend the heavens, that Thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at Thy presence, as when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make Thy name known to Thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at Thy presence! When Thou didst terrible things which we looked not for, Thou camest down, the mountains flowed down at Thy presence." Isaiah 64:1-3. "The Lord hath His way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet. He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers." Nahum 1:3, 4. {PP 109.2}

More terrible manifestations than the world has ever yet beheld, will be witnessed at the second advent of Christ. "The mountains quake at Him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at His presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before His indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of His anger?" Nahum 1:5, 6. "Bow Thy heavens, O Lord, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke. Cast forth lightning, and scatter them: shoot out Thine arrows, and destroy them." Psalm 144:5, 6. {PP 109.3}

"I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke." Acts 2:19. "And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great." "And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent." Revelation 16:18, 20, 21. {PP 110.1}

As lightnings from heaven unite with the fire in the earth, the mountains will burn like a furnace, and will pour forth terrific streams of lava, overwhelming gardens and fields, villages and cities. Seething molten masses thrown into the rivers will cause the waters to boil, sending forth massive rocks with indescribable violence and scattering their broken fragments upon the land. Rivers will be dried up. The earth will be convulsed; everywhere there will be dreadful earthquakes and eruptions. {PP 110.2}

Thus God will destroy the wicked from off the earth. But the righteous will be preserved in the midst of these commotions, as Noah was preserved in the ark. God will be their refuge, and under His wings shall they trust. Says the psalmist: "Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the Most High, thy habitation; there shall no evil befall thee." Psalm 91:9, 10. "In the time of trouble He shall hide me in His pavilion: in the secret of His tabernacle shall He hide me." Psalm 27:5. God's promise is, "Because he hath set his love upon Me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known My name." Psalm 91:14. {PP 110.3}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/18/05 07:00 PM

GC 337, 338
From age to age the warnings which God has sent to the world by His servants have been received with like incredulity and unbelief. When the iniquity of the antediluvians moved Him to bring a flood of waters upon the earth, He first made known to them His purpose, that they might have opportunity to turn from their evil ways. {GC 337.3}

Here it says God, not nature, caused the Flood that killed the antediluvians.

1BC 1088
God determined to purify the world by a flood; but in mercy and love He gave the antediluvians a probation of one hundred and twenty years. (Ibid., Sept. 19, 1907). {1BC 1088.6}

She says it was God, not nature, who was determined to destroy the world by a flood.

SR 55
He [Adam] witnessed the general corruption which afterward finally provoked God to destroy the inhabitants of the earth by a flood. {SR 55.1}

God, not nature, destroyed the inhabitants of the earth by a flood.

SR 58
He made known to him that He would not always bear with man in his rebellion--that His purpose was to destroy the sinful race by bringing a flood of waters upon the earth. The pure and lovely Garden of Eden, from which our first parents were driven, remained until God purposed to destroy the earth by a flood. {SR 57.2, 58.1}

God, not nature, caused the flood. It was His purpose, not nature’s.

SR 70, 71
This rainbow was to evidence the fact to all generations that God destroyed the inhabitants of the earth by a flood, because of their great wickedness…. the hands of the Most High had bent the bow and placed it in the clouds as a token that He would never again bring a flood of waters on the earth. {SR 70.2}

Again, it was God, not nature, that destroyed the world by a flood.

SR 72, 73
Some of the descendants of Noah soon began to apostatize. A portion followed the example of Noah and obeyed God's commandments; others were unbelieving and rebellious, and even these did not believe alike in regard to the Flood. Some disbelieved in the existence of God, and in their own minds accounted for the Flood from natural causes. Others believed that God existed and that He destroyed the antediluvian race by a flood; and their feelings, like Cain's, rose in rebellion against God because He destroyed the people from the earth and cursed the earth the third time by a flood…. Those who did not believe in God imagined if their tower could reach unto the clouds, they would be able to discover reasons for the Flood. {SR 72.1, 3}

Tom, it is unbelievers who blame the Flood on natural causes, rather than attributing it to vengeance of God.

3SG 87
As he called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the flood, as weapons from his arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years will call forth the fires in the earth as his weapons which he has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the flood. {3SG 87.1}

Again, it was God who called forth the water, not nature. Nowhere, not once, does she ever say God allowed nature to run it's inevitable, impending course of destruction.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/18/05 10:01 PM

Tom:You didn't answer this simple question: Were the waters under the earth which broke forth under pressure? You sort of answered it by writing:

quote:
Under great pressure? Ready to burst forth? Super naturally held back by God? Where are such ideas indicated in the Bible or the SOP?
The answer to your question to me is that the waters of the great deep broke forth. That in and under itself indicates the waters were under great pressure. Anyone with any understanding whatsoever of physics should be able to see this. What do you think caused the waters to go up, contrary to the force of gravity, if not pressure?

I'm going to treat your last two posts first.

I only saw you make one point in your last two points, which is that it is God, not nature, who caused the flood. But you point out that God used nature to accomplish this task, which I've been in agreement all along.

How did God use nature? I propose that God did so by removing His protecting/sustaining hand, which would be in harmony with the principles I outlined. What I have proposed is feasible scientifically, agrees with inspiration (even Rosangela, who agrees with you, agrees my proposal is possible, even though she thinks it's improbable), and agrees with the principles I set out.

You STILL have made no attempt to harmonize your statements with the principles I quoted. According to the Spirit of Prophesy, EVERY truth of Scripture, to be properly understood, MUST be understood in relation to the light streaming from Calvary. You seem to have no idea how to relate your ideas to Calvary, which, according to her statements, would imply you have not properly understood it.

I should add that God's using His word doesn't change anything. God accomplishes everything by His word. The question is if He is using His word in harmony with the principles of His government (which I believe He is) or contrary to them.

The following is from http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/14flod07.htm

quote:
Massive amounts of water burst out of the ground.

When the Flood began, something was "broken up."

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep [tehom] broken up [baqa] and the windows of heaven were opened."

What had happened?

Inside the earth were multiplied thousands of interconnected channels and springs of waters. These provided a vast watering system for the entire earth. As the first rains of the Flood began falling,—this vast system was "broken up," or baqa. These channels and underground pools were torn open and ripped apart violently! Baqa means a "violent cleavage." We have not here a gurgling forth of an artesian spring, but rather the most violent bursting forth of hundreds of thousands of subterranean water sources! One example of this would be Eccl 10:9, in which a man cleaves a block of wood with an axe: a powerful, quick thrust followed by a bursting apart. The presence of baqa also helps to graphically explain two other historical events: As the Israelites approached the Red Sea, the waters burst aside to make room for their passage ("divides" Ex 14:16). As Korah and his associates stood defiantly, the ground beneath their feet exploded sideways, and they and their possessions fell into the chasm which had opened.

Proverbs 3:19 speaks of Creation; Proverbs 3:20 of the Flood, "when the depths are broken up."

Isaiah 35:6 and Psalm 78:15 mention the mighty miracle which occurred when Moses hit the face of a rock monolith with a stick—and a powerful cleavage ripped apart, out of which pure water poured.

The Hebrew word, baqa, is used to describe the breaking up of the immense fountains of the great deep (tehom). Pictured here is a gigantic cleavage of the crust of the earth, with oceans of water exploding outward from those fissures in continual commotion.
3 - FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP

Water in violent commotion.

Psalm 78:15, mentioned above, includes both the words, baqa and tehom,—just as we find in Genesis: "In the sixth hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep [tehom] broken up [baqa] and the windows of heaven were opened" (Gen 7:11). One would expect to find, in Hebrew, "fountains of waters" (mayim), but instead we are presented with "fountains of the great deep" (tehom). "Tehom" specifically means "water in violent commotion, making a great noise."

An understanding of these Hebrew words is enabling us to obtain a better understanding of what the Flood was like!

In Psalm 23:2, we are told about the "still waters," the mayim. But in Genesis 7:11, we are told about the tehom, not the mayim. Those of you who have lived near the ocean, as the present writer has, can understand something of the violence of large, rapidly moving waters. An entire earlier section of this chapter describes the destruction that storm waves can produce. Psalm 42:7 uses tehom to describe the turbid violence of those waves. Exodus 15 speaks of the intense destructive capacity of turbulent waters restrained by the hand of God (15:8), and afterward when they covered the enemies of God's people (15:5).

So, in tehom, we have a description of massive quantities of water in violent, turbid commotion!

This description appears to me to be in harmony with the quotes you gave from the Spirit of Prophesy, as well as Scripture, and science. What caused the fountains of the great deep to break forth? Certainly it was the word of God, but in what capacity? Given the waters which burst forth from the great deep were under great pressure, which they must have been, the word of God commanded the waters be released. This harmonizes with everything.
Posted By: Charity

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/18/05 10:11 PM

You've asked me four times now Tom about whether your position should give you pause regarding the sorrow you suggested one should feel at the death of those who align themselves with Babylon. Mike has pointed out just above that attributing the flood to natural causes is what unbelievers are guilty of. That should also give you pause. I could list other things but you're not at a point yet apparently where you are prepared to consider some of these things. I can only hope you'll store them away in your memory for future reference.
Posted By: Charity

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/18/05 10:29 PM

One final note: You are right to observe that some of my comments show a 'Calvanist' perspective. Our 'Calvanist' friends are at the opposite extreme of Adventist theology regarding the role of the will. However, scripture is in the middle and it rejects the idea that anyone can be saved who chooses to be. The saved will be in heaven because God has chosen them. They have said 'yes' to God and to Christ, but it was Christ who chose us, not vice versa. This is an important area that merits another thread.

Part of the fall out of Adventism's (not Ellen White's) unscriptural view of the role of the will is the inroads that the 'moral influence' proponants are making in the church. Those who place undue emphasis on the will are vulnerable to the ideas that God does not punish, that forgiveness can issue from God without the need for a sacrifice, etc. To be clear, I am not saying Tom you hold all of these ideas.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/18/05 10:36 PM

Mike:Tom, in your post to Mark you used the name Mike.

Tom:Not always, just sometimes. I've had a lot more practice typing "Mike" than "Mark," so it just kind of falls of the fingers.

Mike:And, who is Daniel? Do you mean Daryl?

Tom:All this time, Daryl has been with you, and you don't know? When you've seen Daryl, you've seen Daniel.

Mike: By the way, it would appear that Ty Gibson subscribes to the idea that God does not, has not, and will not destroy. In a conversation, about 20 years ago, Ty commented on the Flood, “Satan was like a mad scientist whose experiment had gone wrong, and he feared for his own life.”

Tom:What conversation? A private converstation? What?

Old Tom: This is just an idea. Inspiration doesn't tell us exactly how the flood occured. What we do know is that the principles of God are eternal; He doesn't change. Inspiration doesn't contradict itself.

Mike:Tom! Tom! Tom! Listen to yourself, please.

Tom:Ok. Let's see, "Inspiration doesn't contradict itself." Ok. I respond "Amen!" to what I'm saying.

Mike:You are building an entire theory based on “just an idea”.

Tom:No, I'm building an entire theory based on the premise that inspiration does not contradict itself. In particular, the following inspirational quotes must be harmonized:

quote:
There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." The Desire of Ages, 487.
quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." The Ministry of Healing, 113.
quote:
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. (DA 79)
quote:
The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." The Great Controversy, 36.
quote:
In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light which streams from the cross of Calvary, and in connection with the wondrous, central truth of the Saviour's atonement. (5ABC 1137)
quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.
How does your idea of what happened harmonize with these principles?

Mike:What does the Bible say about it?

2 Peter
1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Just because you say the Bible or the SOP do not clearly explain how God caused the Flood doesn’t make it so.

Tom:Just because you ignore the quotes I present does not make them not exist. These principles do exist, and must be accounted for.

Mike:Again, she says, “Then ‘the fountains of the great deep’ were ‘broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.’ Water appeared to come from the clouds in mighty cataracts. Rivers broke away from their boundaries, and overflowed the valleys. Jets of water burst from the earth with indescribable force, throwing massive rocks hundreds of feet into the air, and these, in falling, buried themselves deep in the ground.”

Do you suspect that these “mighty cataracts” were being unnaturally held back by God, too?

Tom:No, I suspect they came from the waters which broke forth from the depths.

Mike:You seem to discount the rain in your attempt to explain the Flood story in the Bible and the SOP.

Tom:Where do you think the rain came from?

Mike:
PP 101
Love, no less than justice, demanded that God's judgments should put a check on sin. The avenging waters swept over the last retreat, and the despisers of God perished in the black depths. {PP 100.3}

"By the word of God . . . the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:5-7. Another storm is coming. The earth will again be swept by the desolating wrath of God, and sin and sinners will be destroyed. {PP 101.1}

Inspiration plainly tells us that the Flood was caused by the “word of God.” And yet you seem to believe it was caused by God merely withdrawing His hand and allowing nature to run its natural course, which, you admit, is just an idea.

Tom:You've missed understood the "just an idea" phrase. That God caused the flood to occur by withdrawing His protective and sustaining hand is in harmony with the quotes I presented above. That God did this according to His word also harmonizes with everything. As to how specifically scientifically the flood occured, we are not told. I posted in the other post, just before this one, some points made by a creationist site.

Mike:Inspiration also says “by the same word” the world is kept in store until God destroys it with fire. Do you also suspect that this fire, which comes “down from God out of heaven” (Rev 20:9), is bursting at the seams somewhere in the heavens, ready and eager to destroy the world?

Tom:No, I suspect the fire is in the same place the water was. It's called magma.

Mike:PP 103, 104
In Noah's day philosophers declared that it was impossible for the world to be destroyed by water; so now there are men of science who endeavor to show that the world cannot be destroyed by fire--that this would be inconsistent with the laws of nature. But the God of nature, the Maker and Controller of her laws, can use the works of His hands to serve His own purpose. {PP 103.2}

When great and wise men had proved to their satisfaction that it was impossible for the world to be destroyed by water, when the fears of the people were quieted, when all regarded Noah's prophecy as a delusion, and looked upon him as a fanatic--then it was that God's time had come. "The fountains of the great deep" were "broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened," and the scoffers were overwhelmed in the waters of the Flood. With all their boasted philosophy, men found too late that their wisdom was foolishness, that the Lawgiver is greater than the laws of nature, and that Omnipotence is at no loss for means to accomplish His purposes. {PP 103.3}

Here she plainly says God, contrary to the laws of nature, used the forces of nature to serve His own purpose.

Tom:She didn't say God worked contrary to the laws of nature. Elsewhere she states God doesn't work contrary to the laws of nature. She said God used the laws of nature, and that God is great than the laws of nature (which of course, He must be, being their Creator).

Mike:There is absolutely nothing about this insight to suggest that nature would have destroyed mankind if God hadn’t mercifully held her in check.

Tom:Read MH 416. We owe our existence to God's loving protective and sustaining care. This applies to both the natural and moral/spiritual realm.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/19/05 05:59 PM

Okay, Tom, I'm done. You are obviously unwilling to admit that God has, and will, destroy unsaved sinners without violating His law or character. I leave you with this quote to ponder:

quote:
[1] Some disbelieved in the existence of God, and in their own minds accounted for the Flood from natural causes. [2] Others believed that God existed and that He destroyed the antediluvian race by a flood; and their feelings, like Cain's, rose in rebellion against God because He destroyed the people from the earth and cursed the earth the third time by a flood…. Those who did not believe in God imagined if their tower could reach unto the clouds, they would be able to discover reasons for the Flood. {SR 72.1, 3}

Which category do you fall into, Tom?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/20/05 06:17 AM

I have never said the flood occured by natural causes.

There are two groups of people, Mike. Those who believe that all that can be known of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son in His humanity, and those who don't. Which group are you in?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Who or What caused the Flood? - 09/23/05 07:18 AM

quote:
You've asked me four times now Tom about whether your position should give you pause regarding the sorrow you suggested one should feel at the death of those who align themselves with Babylon.
Somehow I missed this. Thank you for answering my question.

Mark, I apologize if my question was not clear. Here's your statement and my question:

quote:
Mark, you wrote:By placing a one-sided construction on the passages you quote, you have arrived at a position where you will not be in harmony with God. It should give you pause.

To which I asked:Doesn't this pronoucement seem a bit popish? "You have arrived at a position where you will not be in harmony with God." Do you disagree? Or do you see nothing wrong in statements such as this?

My question was regarding *your* statement, whether or not it (your statement) seems popish to you. You state that I have arrived at a position where I will not be in harmony with God. *This* is what I think is popish. Do you disagree? Do you think what you wrote is acceptable?

Above you referenced my saying something about feeling sorrow for the death of those who align themselves for Bablyon. What statement of mine did you have in mind? I'm not aware of making any statement about those who align themselves with Babylon.

Please produce direct quotes regarding what I've written (or be very careful). That's what Rosangela does. Even though she disagrees with me, she doesn't misrepresent what I write. That way there can be no doubt about what the person actually said. There may still be misunderstanding involved, but at least one layer of confusion is eliminated.

Thank you.
© 2024 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church