APL,

You willfully turn your eyes from the truth. How else can you interpret "destructive power exercised by holy angels" to mean "they no longer restrain evil forces?"

If they are not "restraining," how can that be "the same destructive power" which they are exercising? I don't see any possibility of "sameness" involved here.

I'm an English teacher. Grammar is one of my strengths. Translation is one of my strengths. I am familiar with word usages. Your interpretation of Mrs. White's wording here hangs by such a small thread of possibility as to render it highly improbable, if even quite possible. In any case, I would like you to explain how "lack of restraint" and "destruction" are "the same."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Deuteronomy 31:17-18
17 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 on us, because our God is not among us?
18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have worked, in that they are turned to other gods.

No, you have not used "bad grammer (sic)," just poor spelling there. I have a degree in biology, not English. I have taught science and biology. I teach English because it's what people here want. I often give "biology" lessons in English, because it's what I enjoy. I do have a degree in a foreign language as well, so language is part of my education. Hopefully that clears up a few things about me. Now, for something a bit less narcissistic.

You mentioned Revelation 7. You have favorite passages because they are the ones that support your view. I suppose Revelation 14, which crosses your view, would not get much notice from you. In this do I suppose correctly?

You see, my view encompasses multiple ways in which God manages things. You have chosen to limit your view to one way only in which God can take care of the sin problem. As Rosangela so aptly pointed out to you, sin will not destroy itself. God will do this. When the sin resides in the sinner, God will be forced to destroy sin and sinner together. We are told this.



There are Bible texts which tell us God will destroy sinners too...which you evidently are unable to read without special glasses on that translate them for you.



Somehow, in your mind, every time you see "God destroyed" or "God will destroy" you translate it to mean "God allowed Satan to destroy" or "God will let Satan destroy." You believe that God is too good, too soft, too merciful, too loving, too tender to ever hurt anyone or anything. You believe that all of creation has been affected by sin, and that thorns and thistles were not even part of God's plan, but that of the enemy, despite God's words to the contrary.

In other words, you also believe that when God cursed the fig tree, God removed His protection from it and let Satan "have at it!"

I shake my head in wonder. How can someone truly misread all of these things? When Jesus Himself caused all of those events, it disempowers Him, weakens Him, and makes Him appear silly.

When Jesus caused the nets to be filled with fish, I suppose He withdrew His protection from those poor fish--leading them to be caught in the net? It is clear that He removed His protection from the pigs, and let the devils enter them...so I suppose any time an animal dies it was because He removed His protection? Did God remove His protection from the innocent lambs that were about to be slain? What "sin" had the lamb committed to deserve it? Not one. It was declared to be "innocent" and it represented the innocent Lamb of God which also had no sin.

Your theology doesn't understand that one either. You think Jesus was killed for sin that He had within Him. Had this been the case, He could never have been raised again, but would have been as guilty as all of us, for if He were not perfect, He could not have paid our price. We would all be hopelessly lost. Thank God this isn't so!

Your theology simply has too many variances from truth, and it is quite an intricate web of errors all put together to the point where I firmly believe you are sincerely believing it all.

APL, know this: sincerity won't save anyone.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This should really be the final word in this thread:

God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner. Men reason from their own low standard of right and justice. "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself" (Psalm 50:21). They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do. . . . {LDE 240.5} In no kingdom or government is it left to the lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken the law. All we have, all the bounties of His grace which we possess, we owe to God. The aggravating character of sin against such a God cannot be estimated any more than the heavens can be measured with a span. God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force. {LDE 241.1} 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. {LDE 241.2} Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?--12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876). {LDE 241.3}

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There is no question there is penalty for transgression of the law. And you should admit that I have NEVER claimed this, right? The question is, how does the penalty come about.

Within the Word of God, the same terminology is used consistently when describing God’s actions in the destruction of people and cities. God does not provide a careful explanation of what He means by these words in every case, but there are places where He does, and this is sufficient to inform us how every such expression is to be interpreted. Thus the truth is established in the “mouth of two or three witnesses” (Matthew 18:16).

1) The death of Saul
2) The destruction of Jerusalem
3) Fiery Serpents

There are three withnesses.

When human beings destroy, they move toward the victim with deliberate intention to kill.

When God destroys, He moves away from the subject with no intention of killing.

When human beings destroy, they carry the weapons of death in their hands.

When God destroys, He carries no weapons but lays down control of the destructive powers.

When human beings destroy, they guide the sword to its target.

When God destroys, there is no personal administration of punishment. Whatever comes upon sinners is the outworking of the forces of death that they themselves have set in motion.

Two questions : what is the essential difference between the direct act of destroying or that of departing to leave the person to die? In both cases it is God’s action that brings about the destruction, and therefore, in each case, He is a destroyer.

This would be true if God’s withdrawal was His own act, but it is not. The fact is that He is driven away.

The truth of this is stated in a paragraph from Prophets and Kings.

Christ will never abandon those for whom He has died. We may leave Him and be overwhelmed with temptation, but Christ can never turn from one for whom He has paid the ransom of His own life {PK 175.3}.

In view of the fact that Christ died for everyone, this statement is saying that it is impossible for Christ to turn away from anyone. People turn away from God. God cannot turn away from humanity. That is impossible.

The second question is this: If God does not in fact destroy, then why does He use this word to describe His actions? Does this not tend to make the Scriptures confusing?

Again, this is an excellent question. But this is the right word to use in describing God’s actions, for there is a deep and important sense in which it is true that He does destroy.

God comes to humanity in one role only, which is as a Savior. But the effect of that effort is not always a saving one. With the majority, the effect is to harden them in rebellion and to cause them to withdraw themselves from the voice of loving entreaty. Thus God destroys by trying to save. The more He exerts His saving power, the more that people reject His offer, thus leading to destruction. It is in this sense that He destroys.

This principle of truth is spelled out with great clarity in the following statement:

It is not God that blinds the eyes of men or hardens their hearts. He sends them light to correct their errors, and to lead them in safe paths; it is by the rejection of this light that the eyes are blinded and the heart hardened. Often the process is gradual, and almost imperceptible. Light comes to the soul through God’s word, through His servants, or by the direct agency of His Spirit; but when one ray of light is disregarded, there is a partial benumbing of the spiritual perceptions, and the second revealing of light is less clearly discerned. So the darkness increases, until it is night in the soul. Thus it had been with these Jewish leaders. They were convinced that a divine power attended Christ, but in order to resist the truth, they attributed the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan. In doing this they deliberately chose deception; they yielded themselves to Satan, and henceforth they were controlled by his power {DA 322.2}.

It is not God that puts the blinder before the eyes of men or makes their hearts hard; it is the light which God sends to his people, to correct their errors, to lead them in safe paths, but which they refuse to accept,―it is this that blinds their minds and hardens their hearts {RH, October 21, 1890 par. 3} .

APL,

Mouth of two or three witnesses:

Sodom
Nadab & Abihu
Uzzah

You are doing exactly what Mrs. White said would happen: "God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner." You are representing God this way. But Mrs. White does not commend this. Far from it. You may wish to read the quote I posted again.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green Cochoa, I noticed someone over at Club Adventist tells you what is lacking in your understanding, and that is some math. This is what I had to discover many years ago, both in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White. You will recall that God calls on you to come and reason together, and he speaks also of your reasonable service. Then He clinches in 1 Corinthians 13

King James Version (KJV)

13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

A + B + CHARITY = TRUTH

Johann,

It is true that God's love is great. Yet Mrs. White tells us it is an error to speak of it as though it would prevent God from punishing the sinner.



Falsehood spoken with love is certainly not the truth. Truth is truth regardless who speaks it and with what motive it is spoken. The serpent spoke truth to Eve in saying that the fruit would give her knowledge. It did.

Love is good. But what is love without truth? God's word is truth. Sometimes a sound rebuke is more loving than a soothing sympathy.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I can interpret Sodom, Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, the flood, the 185,000 Assyrians, etc from by point of view. You can't use Sodom, Nadab and Abihu, and Uzzah to understand the killing of Saul, the destruction of Jerusalem and the fiery serpents. God does not change. The method He uses are the same, and they look just like Jesus.

Now - show me where I said sinners will not be destroyed. They will, but it will be by the LAMB's methods, not Satan's methods.