|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,600
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
6 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, ProdigalOne, Kevin H, Daryl, 1 invisible),
3,050
guests, and 20
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15377
09/02/05 09:44 PM
09/02/05 09:44 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15378
09/02/05 10:04 PM
09/02/05 10:04 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15379
09/03/05 01:04 AM
09/03/05 01:04 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
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."
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15380
09/03/05 01:47 AM
09/03/05 01:47 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15381
09/03/05 02:05 AM
09/03/05 02:05 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15382
09/03/05 05:25 PM
09/03/05 05:25 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15383
09/04/05 02:12 AM
09/04/05 02:12 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15384
09/04/05 07:19 PM
09/04/05 07:19 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15385
09/04/05 09:05 PM
09/04/05 09:05 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15386
09/04/05 11:33 PM
09/04/05 11:33 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
