|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,630
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: The Arsenals of God's Wrath - An Inspired Account
#7163
11/09/05 04:56 AM
11/09/05 04:56 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Okay, Tom, now that we are on the same page I'm ready to listen to your view of the Flood. What did Jesus do that was fundamentally and principally the same as the Flood when He walked this planet as a human being.
As surprising as it is for me to write this, I find that after two weeks, you still haven't answered my question. I don't know what "now that we are on the same page" means. I understand you have accepted the premises I stated as true, but it appears to me that you do not accept the conclusion, although you have not actually stated that. If it is true that you do not accept the conclusion, which is that given that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, and that ALL that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son in His humanity, then it follows that neither God nor Christ either acted in the past or will act in the future in a way which is fundamentally different in principle than how Christ acted during His life on earth.
It appears to me that you disagree with this conclusion, yet it appears to me to follow logically from the premises. Basically it's just restating the premises in other words. Do you agree with this? If not, why not? What is unsound about this argument?
Regarding your grade school analogy: if a person did something different than the way they did it in grade school then it would be explained as an anomaly - a strange act.
So should we adjust the premises I've suggested then? Like:
a)Jesus Christ, often the same yesterday, today and forever.
b)Not all, but lots, of what can be know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
Would this be more accurate?
PS - You are second guessing my motives when you post things like you do. Since you cannot possibly know my motives, please refrain from making such comments. Thank you.
I can't recall anything I posted which guessed at your motives. I simply pointed out that it's annoying, and asked you why you do it, as well as asking you why.
Here's what you wrote, "Tom, I agree with you that the principles you've outline should help us understand how and why Jesus used a Flood to kill millions of people." This would be as if I wrote, "Mike, I agree with you that the principles you've outlined should help us understand how and why Paul was referring to himself as unconverted in Romans 7." That Paul was referring to himself as unconverted is a point you have made clear you do not believe, so for me to say "I agree with you" regarding something you obviously don't believe would be an odd thing for me to write, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Re: The Arsenals of God's Wrath - An Inspired Account
#7164
11/09/05 03:12 PM
11/09/05 03:12 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
It appears to me that you disagree with this conclusion, yet it appears to me to follow logically from the premises. Basically it's just restating the premises in other words. Do you agree with this?
Yes. What you haven't made clear yet is how Jesus demonstrated the fundamental principle revealed during the Flood while He was on earth as a human being. Do you have an answer?
|
|
|
Re: The Arsenals of God's Wrath - An Inspired Account
#7165
11/09/05 05:47 PM
11/09/05 05:47 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Just to be clear on this, I have stated that:
a)Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
b)ALL that can be known of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son
Therefore
c)Jesus did nothing fundamentally different in principle during His life than God or Jesus have done at any other time, whether in the past or in the future.
I stated that c) was basically just restating a) and b). You are agreeing with this. However earlier you wrote:
"I have shared quote after quote where the SOP clearly describes Jesus doing things He didn't do while He walked this planet as a human being."
This does NOT agree with c). My conclusion is directly opposed to what you're suggesting. So how can you agree with what I have written, when you state something which is directly in conflict with it? Have you changed your mind? (this seems to me to be exceedingly unlikely). So could you clarify what you mean by "Yes" to my answer if you agreed with me. Are you agreeing to the same thing I'm asking you about? Or "agreeing" with something else?
|
|
|
Re: The Arsenals of God's Wrath - An Inspired Account
#7166
11/10/05 01:30 AM
11/10/05 01:30 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, as amazing as it sounds, I agree with you. You and I both agree Jesus did not cause or permit a worldwide flood to kill millions while He was on earth as a human being. The question is, though, did He do anything fundamentally or principally similar? That is, did He do anything that was based on the same principles that the Flood was based on? Earlier you implied, or so I thought you did, that Jesus did do things based on the same principles.
|
|
|
Re: The Arsenals of God's Wrath - An Inspired Account
#7167
11/10/05 05:30 AM
11/10/05 05:30 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Boy that took a long time. Why didn't you just say you agreed two weeks ago when I first asked the question? That would have been easier.
Here are some principles relating to the flood:
1)Action had to be taken, or else the race would have perished.
2)God worked hard to save the lost. He sent a messenger, who preached long and hard a message of salvation.
3)The messenger was mocked, despised and unheaded.
4)God withdrew His protective/sustaining hand, and ruin resulted.
I can think of a number of incidents in Christ's life which follow this pattern. The most striking one, to my mind, is the destruction of Jersulem, which fits this to a tee.
I think of the above principles, only the last would you take issue with. You would say (please correct me if I mistate your position) that rather than God withdrawing His protective/sustaining hand that He rather inflicted pain, suffering and death with a vindictive, blood-thristy hand (I'm just using language you've used in the past here, but again, if I'm misrepresenting your position, please correct me).
I don't see your perspective in Christ's life. I see Him working to save, and destruction coming as a result of refusing that work.
Some other incidents which have these principles are:
1)Judas
2)Fig tree
3)Swines plunging from cliff
4)Lazarus dying
I should comment on Lazarus' dying, since it's a little different. Lazarus, like Job, did not suffer because of something he had done, but in order that principles of truth could be revealed. Sickness could not have overcome Lazarus had Christ been near (Desire of Ages); it was only when Christ withdrew that Lazarus could die.
|
|
|
Re: The Arsenals of God's Wrath - An Inspired Account
#7168
11/10/05 03:04 PM
11/10/05 03:04 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, thank you for making your point of view clear. You're right, we don't agree on how God caused the Flood. The quote at the beginning of this thread makes it clear, to me at least, how God caused the Flood. The only thing that comes close to the principles involved, as far as I can see, is when Jesus twice drove out the unholy traffickers in the temple, and when He uttered woes and promised punishment and destruction.
|
|
|
Re: The Arsenals of God's Wrath - An Inspired Account
#7169
11/10/05 07:34 PM
11/10/05 07:34 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM, I thought of cleansing the temple of the moneychangers, but didn't see that as really being the same principle, although it could be. It's really more in line with the judgment, it seems to me. The woes of the Pharisees is included in my mind with the destruction of Jersualem. Jesus warned what would happen if they rejected him. 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)
These principles we see spelled out in the destruction of Jerusalem are certainly easily seen in Christ's life. So this would take care of the woes on the Pharisees.
Regarding the cleansing of the temple, we read:
quote:
Overpowered with terror, the priests and rulers had fled from the temple court, and from the searching glance that read their hearts. In their flight they met others on their way to the temple, and bade them turn back, telling them what they had seen and heard. Christ looked upon the fleeing men with yearning pity for their fear, and their ignorance of what constituted true worship. In this scene He saw symbolized the dispersion of the whole Jewish nation for their wickedness and impenitence.
And why did the priests flee from the temple? Why did they not stand their ground? He who commanded them to go was a carpenter's son, a poor Galilean, without earthly rank or power. Why did they not resist Him? Why did they leave the gain so ill acquired, and flee at the command of One whose outward appearance was so humble?
Christ spoke with the authority of a king, and in His appearance, and in the tones of His voice, there was that which they had no power to resist. At the word of command they realized, as they had never realized before, their true position as hypocrites and robbers. When divinity flashed through humanity, not only did they see indignation on Christ's countenance; they realized the import of His words. They felt as if before the throne of the eternal Judge, with their sentence passed on them for time and for eternity. For a time they were convinced that Christ was a prophet; and many believed Him to be the Messiah. The Holy Spirit flashed into their minds the utterances of the prophets concerning Christ. Would they yield to this conviction? (DA 162)
In this text we see that what caused the moneychangers to leave was the revelation of truth. They saw their true position as hypocrits, and fled in the face of the condemnation they felt.
So in both the incidents you mention we see God working through the principles of love, mercy and truth; not force. God in love reveals the truth for the purpose of saving. For those who reject the truth, the response is a negative one, but not because of God's work (although the enemy presents it is this way) but because of their own choice.
This is what the inspired commentary on these events tells us. So there is nothing in Christ's life which presents the view of the flood you present, as far as I can see. Given the principle that there is nothing we can know of God that is not revealed in Christ's life, until you can produce some evidence in Christ's life which agrees with the view you are espousing, I can only conclude that it is in error.
|
|
|
Re: The Arsenals of God's Wrath - An Inspired Account
#7170
11/11/05 03:57 PM
11/11/05 03:57 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Okay. Thank you for sharing. I am convinced that the inspired testimony at the beginning of this thread accurately describes the character of God in light of the Flood. It is a "strange act", behaviour that is seemingly inconsistent with a loving and merciful Lord. The Flood is not the first time God has behaved in way that seems out of character, nor will it be the last time. We have not seen the last of God's "strange" behaviour. Not until the flames and smoke of the lake of fire are extinquished, not until the earth is renewed, not until paradise is restored, will God cease His strange actions. And, it will be none too soon for His taste.
|
|
|
Re: The Arsenals of God's Wrath - An Inspired Account
#7171
11/11/05 06:30 PM
11/11/05 06:30 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Okay. Thank you for sharing. I am convinced that the inspired testimony at the beginning of this thread accurately describes the character of God in light of the Flood. It is a "strange act", behaviour that is seemingly inconsistent with a loving and merciful Lord.
I agree with this. I'm quite sure Rosangela would agree with me as to the motive as well, and you might too. I see the motive as being one of love, to protect the race. God destroyed the world with a flood, but only after working actively for 120 years through His messenger to save. In the work of destruction, God's character of Savior not Destroyer (recall Satan is the destroyer, God the restorer) is seen in several ways.
First of all, if God did not act, the race would have perished, so God had to act in order to save the race. Secondly, God, through a messenger, worked for 120 years to save. "Whosoever would" could come. Only those who persistently rejected God's grace were lost. Anyone who would have heeded God's saving message would have been saved, regardless of their sins.
Where you and I differ on the flood is regarding how God's actions were performed, which I think is based on a logical reasoning on your part on at several counts.
First of all, there is ample evidence that the flood was precipitated primarily by waters beneath the crust of the earth. There is the record of Scripture, that the waters burst forth from the depths. Secondly there is the record of the Spirit of Prophecy that God made use of waters beneath the earth's crust, of which the antedilians were ignorant, when they "proved" scientifically that a flood was impossible. Thirdly there is scientific models Creationists have constructed which argue that the flood was started when waters beneath the earth's crust "burst forth".
In order for the waters to "burst forth", they had to be under pressure. If they were under pressure, all God had to do was to allow whatever it was that was holding the pressure back loose, and the water would "burst forth". It would be like a dam breaking, or moving your thumb away from a garden hose.
So given the water was under pressure, which it would have to be to "burst forth", it is quite possible that God had been acting the whole time to keep the water under pressure in check. He could have been using angels to do so. We have much precident for angels working in this way, perhaps the best example being the angels holding back the winds of strife. At the appropriate time, God commands, "Release!" and the angels stop their protective work. Ruin follows as a result of rejecting God's saving work.
The second area where I see a lack of logical reasoning is that you fail to harmonize God's character in the flood with that of Jesus Christ's revelation during His life on earth. The whole purpose of Jesus' mission was to reveal the character of God, yet there is not a single incident in His entire life which is, to use your own words, even remotely like how you perceive God to have acted in the flood.
I find it amazing that you hold to the following:
a)Christ never did anything during His life on earth, the purpose of which was to reveal God's character, that was even remotely like what happened during the flood.
b)God has never acted fundamentally differently in principle than how Christ acted while here on earth.
You've stated both these points on this thread several time. It should be clear that these points are mutually contradictory, yet you somehow hold to both. To simultaneously hold to mutually contradictory positions is indeed a "strange act".
The Flood is not the first time God has behaved in way that seems out of character, nor will it be the last time.
I agree with this as well. The key word is "seems". What happens, as described, indeed "seems" to be out of character, but upon further review, when all the facts are known, it will be seen that God has never acted out of character.
We are told that ALL that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. The purpose of Jesus Christ was to reveal the character of God. The judgment will reveal that God has NEVER, not even once, acted in any contrary to how Jesus acted while on earth.
God is gracious, kind, generous, merciful, compassaionate, forgiving, patient; He is self-sacrificing love. He love the world so much, He was willing to risk eternally losing His own Son. He has been maligned by the evil one as harsh, severe, unforgiving and arbitrary, and it is a shame that many see Him as acting acording to the principles of Satan's government (such as force), but it will be seen that love, mercy and truth are the means by which God unfailingly administers His government.
We have not seen the last of God's "strange" behaviour. Not until the flames and smoke of the lake of fire are extinquished, not until the earth is renewed, not until paradise is restored, will God cease His strange actions. And, it will be none too soon for His taste.
I agree with this two. As long as sin exists, God will be blamed for bad things which happen. Only when there are no more bad things to happen will the blame cease.
|
|
|
Re: The Arsenals of God's Wrath - An Inspired Account
#7172
11/12/05 05:41 AM
11/12/05 05:41 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
God not only causes or permits things to happen when people refuse to heed His help and warnings and pleadings to save themselves from promised coming doom, He also punishes them. And then He will resurrect them at the end of time and punish them again before He eliminates them in the lake of fire.
By the way, I noticed you didn't mention the water that fell from the sky during the Flood. Why not? Also, what makes you think the subterranean water was under pressure of its own accord? How did it get that way, and why wasn’t it that way in the beginning? What caused the change?
You seem to believe the only way water could have gushed or burst forth the bowels of the earth is due to naturally occurring pressurization. What makes you so absolutely certain there is no other possible explanation?
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
