|
Forums118
Topics9,223
Posts196,070
Members1,325
| |
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: Destruction of the wicked
#13538
06/03/05 03:48 AM
06/03/05 03:48 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
T: Ok, thanks for the clarification. Your approach would be that sometimes sin is the cause of destruction, and sometimes God is the cause of destruction. That would be a better way of putting it than sin destroys or God destroys. Is that right?
No.
What causes the destruction? In all cases, sin.
Who accomplishes the destruction?
1- God or His agents; or
2- Satan or his agents, when God permits
quote:
I don't think the distinction you can make is viable.
Tom, I do think it is viable. Why would she mention two different things as examples of the same event (the day of judgment) and refer to both in such absolute terms as “never”?
quote:
She is describing a principle which applies to "all." This can only have the final judgement in mind, as on this earth "all" do not receive the results of their sin. Not even close. It's only at the judgement that the retribution of sin occurs.
She mentions the destruction of Jerusalem as an example of what will happen to all who yield to Satan’s control. She says:
“Dark are the records of human misery that earth has witnessed during its long centuries of crime.... Terrible have been the results of rejecting the authority of Heaven. But a scene yet darker is presented in the revelations of the future.”
But what are these revelations?
“What are these [the records of the past], in contrast with the terrors of that day when the restraining Spirit of God shall be wholly withdrawn from the wicked, no longer to hold in check the outburst of human passion and satanic wrath! The world will then behold, as never before, the results of Satan's rule.
“But in that day, as in the time of Jerusalem's destruction, God's people will be delivered...” {GC 36}
And then she ends with the manifestation of God’s glory at the second coming of Christ. She doesn’t go beyond that. It is true that at both the second coming and the judgment day God will manifest His glory, but she is referring to the former here, and not to the latter.
quote:
My point here is that God's disposition towards the wicked does not change. He would save them if He could. He has no anger or hatred towards them.
Yes, of course. But He shows His disapproval of their sin, and He can’t show this with a sweet smile in His face. Jesus didn’t smile while He was rebuking the money-changers, but of course He smiled when the children who were entering the temple approached Him.
quote:
The point of the concept is that we owe our physical lives to the death of Christ. That's what "corporate justification" is saying.
“Corporate justification” and “legal justification” are terms used by Wieland, Sequeira and others, to express the concept that everyone is legally saved until they have "chosen to resist the saving grace of God." Is this what you believe?
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13539
06/02/05 04:18 PM
06/02/05 04:18 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom: Ok, thanks for the clarification. Your approach would be that sometimes sin is the cause of destruction, and sometimes God is the cause of destruction. That would be a better way of putting it than sin destroys or God destroys. Is that right?
R: No.
What causes the destruction? In all cases, sin.
Who accomplishes the destruction?
1- God or His agents; or
2- Satan or his agents, when God permits
T: This seems to be saying in no case sin causes destruction. Either Satan and his agents, when God permits, causes destruction, or God does. Sin doesn't cause destruction, but is simply a criterion based on which God chooses to destroy, either Himself personally, or through an agent.
Old Tom:I don't think the distinction you can make is viable.
R: Tom, I do think it is viable. Why would she mention two different things as examples of the same event (the day of judgment) and refer to both in such absolute terms as “never”?
T: That wasn't the distinction I was talking about. I was talking about distinguishing between sin destroying and sin causing destruction. It's a moot point anyway, as you've explained your thought.
Old Tom:She is describing a principle which applies to "all." This can only have the final judgement in mind, as on this earth "all" do not receive the results of their sin. Not even close. It's only at the judgement that the retribution of sin occurs.
R: She mentions the destruction of Jerusalem as an example of what will happen to all who yield to Satan’s control. She says:
“Dark are the records of human misery that earth has witnessed during its long centuries of crime.... Terrible have been the results of rejecting the authority of Heaven. But a scene yet darker is presented in the revelations of the future.”
But what are these revelations?
“What are these [the records of the past], in contrast with the terrors of that day when the restraining Spirit of God shall be wholly withdrawn from the wicked, no longer to hold in check the outburst of human passion and satanic wrath! The world will then behold, as never before, the results of Satan's rule.
“But in that day, as in the time of Jerusalem's destruction, God's people will be delivered...” {GC 36}
And then she ends with the manifestation of God’s glory at the second coming of Christ. She doesn’t go beyond that. It is true that at both the second coming and the judgment day God will manifest His glory, but she is referring to the former here, and not to the latter.
T: Again, if this is all she had in mind, and not the destruction of the wicked at the judgement, then the word "all" would not be applicable. Most of the wicked, in this life, get away with their wickedness. The destruction of Jerusalem is hardely a decisive testimony of the destruction of "all" if the even she is referring to is only applicable to some minuscule percentage of the wicked who have ever lived.
Old Tom:My point here is that God's disposition towards the wicked does not change. He would save them if He could. He has no anger or hatred towards them.
R: Yes, of course. But He shows His disapproval of their sin, and He can’t show this with a sweet smile in His face.
T: Of course not. If you had a child who was addicted to heroine, would you meet heroine with a smile on your face? God has always been aware of what a hideous thing sin is, and hates it with a perfect hatred. Sin results in pain, misery, suffering and death for His children. Of course He disapproves of it.
R: Jesus didn’t smile while He was rebuking the money-changers, but of course He smiled when the children who were entering the temple approached Him.
T: Jesus felt pity for the money-changers, the same as for the children who approached them. He loved both classes of people, and was good to both. The same offer of healing applied to both. He wanted to heal the money-changers as well as the children, but they ran away. If they would humble themselves as the children did, he would have healed them too. He is not a respector of persons.
Old Tom:The point of the concept is that we owe our physical lives to the death of Christ. That's what "corporate justification" is saying.
R: “Corporate justification” and “legal justification” are terms used by Wieland, Sequeira and others, to express the concept that everyone is legally saved until they have "chosen to resist the saving grace of God." Is this what you believe?
T: I believe that Christ restored the whole race of men (i.e. everyone) to favor with God by His wonderful work in giving His life. I believe that to the death of Christ we (i.e. everyone) owe even our earthly life. This means the death of Christ is effective, at least to the extent of providing physical life, for everyone.
I have done extensive research on this subject, and the first to use the term "justification" in the sense I am speaking of that I have been able to discover was W. W. Prescott in 1895. The concept was also clearly enunciated by A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, which is where Wieland and others got it from.
The first person who spoke of the theme I have been able to discover was Ellen G. White. Well, I should say, the first person since Biblical times. Ellen G. White, Prescott, Jones and Waggoner got the idea from the Bible, of course.
It wouldn't surprise me of some non-SDA expressed the thought before Ellen White did, but I wasn't able to come across anyone, although the thoughts of some of the fathers (such as Gregory of Nazarene) certainly tend in that direction.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13540
06/03/05 11:20 AM
06/03/05 11:20 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
T: This seems to be saying in no case sin causes destruction. Either Satan and his agents, when God permits, causes destruction, or God does. Sin doesn't cause destruction, but is simply a criterion based on which God chooses to destroy, either Himself personally, or through an agent.
Correction: God does not choose to destroy, He is forced to destroy, for the good and safety of His creatures.
Now, in your position it is also impossible for you to defend that sin destroys in all cases, since in the destruction of Jerusalem, sin was the cause, but it was Satan’s agents (pagan nations) who accomplished the destruction, isn’t it?
quote:
Again, if this is all she had in mind, and not the destruction of the wicked at the judgement, then the word "all" would not be applicable.
I would have nothing against the destruction of Jerusalem as a symbol of the Day of judgment, since several episodes are mentioned as examples of that Day. However, this doesn’t seem to me to be the case because EGW refers to two things in absolute terms; how could they apply to the same event? Now choose the correct alternative: Never was there given a better example of what will happen at the Day of Judgment as:
a) In the destruction of Jerusalem
b) In the agony of Christ on the cross
“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}
“It is a fearful thing for the unrepenting sinner to fall into the hands of the living God. ... Never was this proved to so great an extent as in the agony of Christ, . . . when He bore the wrath of God for a sinful world.” {TMK 64}
quote:
T: Jesus felt pity for the money-changers, the same as for the children who approached them.
The point is that though He felt pity for those miserable creatures, Jesus made clear through His look, through His countenance and through His demeanor that He was displeased with their sin. This made them feel terrorized.
quote:
The concept was also clearly enunciated by A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, which is where Wieland and others got it from.
If you agree with Wieland, then we certainly don’t agree. The physical benefits Christ secured for humanity through the cross can in no way be expressed by the term “justification”. Using the term “justification” in this case would be twisting the term. Now, the point is that Wieland doesn’t use the term “corporate justification” just for physical benefits, but for spiritual status. And again, Ellen White says that the whole race of men was restored to God’s favor in Christ, and of course not all men are in Christ.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13541
06/03/05 11:39 AM
06/03/05 11:39 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
This is a reply from the thread "Salvation of the Wicked". Tom, Saying that Jesus delivers us from our own wrath to come (1 Thess. 1:10), that we will be saved from our own wrath (Rom. 5:9), that we must flee from our own wrath to come (Matt. 3:7) does not make any sense at all. You shouldn’t be so influenced by Waggoner’s views. Who said God is angry with sinners? God is antipathetic to sin. The subject is very simple. God has been restraining His wrath against sin for a long time, but He has set a Day when He will finally manifest this wrath. On that Day, everybody who is in sin will be lost and meet destruction. But, by His own grace, by accepting His sacrifice, we may flee from this wrath, be saved from this wrath which will fall upon the world; for being saved from sin means, among other things, being saved from the just wrath of God against sin. “May the converting power of God come upon the churches, that they may feel a burden for souls, for the souls for whom Christ died, and seek to save them before the day of God's wrath breaks over the world.” {SW, February 12, 1907 par. 10} “That Lamb whose wrath will be so terrible to the scorners of His grace will be grace and righteousness and love and blessing to all who have received Him. The pillar of cloud that was dark with terror and avenging wrath to the Egyptians, was to the people of God a pillar of fire for brightness. So will it be to the Lord's people in these last days. The light and glory of God to His commandment-keeping people are darkness to the unbelieving. They see that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. The arm, long stretched, strong to save all who come unto Him, is strong to execute His judgment upon all who would not come unto Him that they might have life. God grant that while mercy still lingers, while the voice of invitation is still heard, there will be a turning unto the Lord. The sure provision has been made to shelter every soul and shield those who have kept His commandments until the indignation be overpast.” {TMK 356.4} “I was then pointed to the flattering things taught by some of these transgressors of God's law. I was shown a bright light, given by God to guide all who would walk in the way of salvation, and also to serve as a warning to the sinner to flee from the wrath of God, and yield a willing obedience to his claims.” {2SG 275, 276} quote:
God intervenes in the case of Satan by not manifesting His glory to him, because to do so would result in his death. God does manifest His glory to the holy angels, and this is life to them.
In this sense, I agree.
quote:
Yes, and a number of your posts seem to indicate that you believe that angels have immortality of themselves. You wrote something like God created angels so that they live forever. Phil Blanc has noticed and commented on the same thing.
Tom and Ikan,
The following text also could bring additional light about Luke 20:36:
“Man was to be tested and proved, and if he should bear the test of God, and remain loyal and true after the first trial, he was not to be beset with continual temptations; but was to be exalted equal with the angels, and henceforth immortal.”--RH Feb. 24, 1874. {TA 50.1}
Although in a sense it is true that God keeps our hearts beating, and the stars in their orbits, our own experience shows us that many of these processes are automatized. For instance, in a sense it is true that God brings every human being to existence, but how does He do it? He implanted the principle of life in the human cells, therefore the process of reproduction is automatized. Thus, there is a potential human being in a frozen embryo in a laboratory, and any individual may be cloned; and if a human being is born with a physical or mental handicap, this does not mean that God has specifically chosen a given defective cell to be joined to another to form that human being. Therefore, God created man to perpetuate his immortality by partaking of the tree of life, and failing to partake of that tree led man to deteriorated health and temporal death. This is not true of angels, however; their life doesn’t depend on anything, but directly on God. Thus, they are immortal _ until God chooses to remove their lives.
Additionally, Ellen White says that it was by His death that Christ secured Satan’s death and brought Satan under the dominion of death:
“Satan is the author of death. What did Christ do after He brought Satan under the dominion of death? The very last words of Christ while expiring on the cross were, "It is finished" (John 19:30). The devil saw that he had overdone himself. Christ by dying accomplished the death of Satan and brought immortality to light.” {FW 73.4}
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13542
06/03/05 02:09 PM
06/03/05 02:09 PM
|
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,664
Plowing
|
|
"Equal" as mentioned by Sister White also mean "like the angels", by the same conditions angels have eternal life, voluntary submission to His will, which is the Law.
So you mean,Roseangela that neither good angels nor bad angels have unlimited lifespans, as good ones rely on God's mercy through their obedience, and evil ones have nothing but death facing them , right?
Sorry but your philosophy about "automatized life" is very much the definition of Deism: "{The belief}that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning" Webster's New World Dictionary 1998
(By the way: there are no human clones as of yet, unless you trust the Raelian cult's claims! By "individuals" did you mean Dolly the sheep??)
I wonder what you mean by "temporal death"? Adventists do believe in death of body is death of spirit, or am I in the wrong classroom?
Although I dislike studying or quoting from popular compilations of God's Messenger, your quote of {TA 50.1} just happens to be below a relative one:
The law of God existed before man was created. It was adapted to the condition of holy beings; even angels were governed by it.--ST April 15, 1886. {TA 49.5}
Did Satan and his angel sympathizers break the Law? Yes!
Does that mean they sinned? Yes!
Did they reap tangible physical results? Yes; they were banished from heaven, made homeless and vagrants from their heavenly homes...forever.
Did they die, or did death become their future "wages"? Yes, their future destinies, guaranteed but yet to be actualized. "In chains.." as the Word calls it.
So angels DO NOT have eternal life under disobediant circumstances; neither does man. All depends on who is your master, Satan and his seed, sin, or Christ and His seed, His right-doingness.
"By this law, which governs angels, which demands purity in the most secret thoughts, desires, and dispositions, and which "shall stand fast forever..."{ST, April 15, 1886 par. 15}
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13543
06/03/05 02:13 PM
06/03/05 02:13 PM
|
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,664
Plowing
|
|
The law of God existed before man was created. It was adapted to the condition of holy beings; even angels were governed by it.--ST April 15, 1886. {TA 49.5}
In what way was the 10 Commandments "adapted to the condition of holy beings" ?
Does the word "even" mean that she is speaking of others besides the angels?
Who are these beings?
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13544
06/03/05 04:00 PM
06/03/05 04:00 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
Sorry but your philosophy about "automatized life" is very much the definition of Deism: "{The belief}that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning" Webster's New World Dictionary 1998
Very, very different, Ikan. God created the world and its natural laws, but is interested in His creatures personally, knowing even when a sparrow dies and how many strands of hair you have in your head.
However, do you believe that God goes personally to the laboratory to give life to the spermatozoid and the ovule that are being joined there in a test tube? Besides, Ikan, life is life, whether in an animal, in a plant or in a human being. Does God sanction clonings, giving life personally to the creature being cloned?
Yes, death is the penalty of all those who transgress God’s law. The problem we are discussing is, if God didn’t remove Satan’s life, how would he die? What effect of sin would make him die?
P.S. Temporal death is just a terminology to distinguish it from eternal death.
[edited for grammar correction]
[ June 03, 2005, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Rosangela ]
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13545
06/03/05 04:04 PM
06/03/05 04:04 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom: This seems to be saying in no case sin causes destruction. Either Satan and his agents, when God permits, causes destruction, or God does. Sin doesn't cause destruction, but is simply a criterion based on which God chooses to destroy, either Himself personally, or through an agent. R: Correction: God does not choose to destroy, He is forced to destroy, for the good and safety of His creatures. T: This statement looks to have two problems to me. First of all, the idea that God is forced to do anything is problematic. God is God. Everything He does is because He chooses so to do. He is not forced to do anything. Secondly it implies that there is nothing lethal about sin. God is "forced" to do something, because those who have chosen sin would just go merrily along. But sin is lethal, and would cause death at any moment if God did not act to prevent it from doing so: quote:
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. (DA 764)
God doesn't allow Satan and his followers to reap the full result of sin until the judgment when they will be destroyed by His glory. Until then, He does not reveal His glory to the wicked, which artificially allows sin to continue so that its principles can be seen. That way when God does allow the full result of sin to occur, no questions will remain, because the principles of sin will have been clearly seen.
R: Now, in your position it is also impossible for you to defend that sin destroys in all cases, since in the destruction of Jerusalem, sin was the cause, but it was Satan’s agents (pagan nations) who accomplished the destruction, isn’t it?
T: We have been discussing just one event, which is the destruction of the wicked. Let's not get sidetracked from that. I brought up the destruction of Jerusalem because it has principles which deal with the destruction of the wicked.
quote:
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...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 36, 37)
Old Tom:Again, if this is all she had in mind, and not the destruction of the wicked at the judgement, then the word "all" would not be applicable.
R: I would have nothing against the destruction of Jerusalem as a symbol of the Day of judgment, since several episodes are mentioned as examples of that Day. However, this doesn’t seem to me to be the case because EGW refers to two things in absolute terms; how could they apply to the same event? Now choose the correct alternative: Never was there given a better example of what will happen at the Day of Judgment as:
a) In the destruction of Jerusalem
b) In the agony of Christ on the cross
“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}
“It is a fearful thing for the unrepenting sinner to fall into the hands of the living God. ... Never was this proved to so great an extent as in the agony of Christ, . . . when He bore the wrath of God for a sinful world.” {TMK 64}
T: These quotes seem to be making my point. From the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, we learn the principles which will apply to the judgment of the wicked. What happened in the destruction of Jerusalem? Did God actively destroy it? How was God's wrath manifest?
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. (GC 35)
So we see in the destruction of Jerusalem the principle that God's wrath is manifest in His giving those who have chosen sin over to the results of their choice. This principle is also seen on the cross. This is the principle that will apply at the judgment as well. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will destroy the wicked, because by a life of rebellion they have constructed characters which are so out of harmony with God that His presence is to them a consuming fire.
Old Tom: Jesus felt pity for the money-changers, the same as for the children who approached them.
R: The point is that though He felt pity for those miserable creatures, Jesus made clear through His look, through His countenance and through His demeanor that He was displeased with their sin. This made them feel terrorized.
T: It is sin which causes people to feel afraid. This happened to Adam. He ran and hid from God, and when God asked him why, he said he was afraid. But why should he have been afraid of God? That was an irrational fear, but such is how sin plays on the brain. Sin brings self-condemnation and causes us to view God in an unflattering light, as one who would destroy the sinner. This effect of sin is inevitable. There's nothing God can do about it, except as the affected one allows himself to be healed. To all who would respond, Jesus would heal.
Old Tom:The concept was also clearly enunciated by A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, which is where Wieland and others got it from.
R: If you agree with Wieland, then we certainly don’t agree. The physical benefits Christ secured for humanity through the cross can in no way be expressed by the term “justification”.
T: Why not? That's how W. W. Prescott expressed it. This was during a time when Ellen White endorsed his work as strongly as she endorsed anybody's, including Jones and Waggoner.
Paul uses this expression in Romans several times, the clearest of which is perhaps Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." This "justification of life" is speaking of the physical life which Christ bestows upon all. Paul is not talking about justification by faith here because he is speaking of that which applies to all, just as Adam's offense did. Here's how Waggoner comments on this verse:
"There is no exception here. As the condemnation came upon all, so the justification comes upon all. Christ has tasted death for every man. He has given himself for all. Nay, he has given himself to every man. The free gift has come upon all. The fact that it is a free gift is evidence that there is no exception. If it came upon only those who have some special qualification, then it would not be a free gift.
It is a fact, therefore, plainly stated in the Bible, that the gift of righteousness and life in Christ has come to every man on earth. There is not the slightest reason why every man that has ever lived should not be saved unto eternal life, except that they would not have it. So many spurn the gift offered so freely." (http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/aor/rom05.htm)
This is what A. T. Jones said regarding the same verse:
quote:
Therefore, just as far as the first Adam reaches man, so far as the second Adam reaches man. The first Adam brought man under the condemnation of death; the second Adam's unrighteousness undoes that, and makes every man live again. As soon as Adam sinned, God gave him a second chance, and set him free to choose which master he would have. (1895 General Conference Bulliten)
R: Using the term “justification” in this case would be twisting the term.
T: In Romans 5:18 Paul uses the term in exactly this way. W. W. Prescott also used the term exactly this way. Waggoner and Jones, while not using the term, clearly expressed the concept, as shown above. So did Ellen White; "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life" is expressing the same concept as Paul, both in Rom. 5:18 and 2 Cor. 5:14, as well as in other places.
R: Now, the point is that Wieland doesn’t use the term “corporate justification” just for physical benefits, but for spiritual status.
T: Why do you think that? Do you have some quote in mind? I've never seen him express the concept in any other way than Jones, Prescott, Waggoner and EGW used it.
R: And again, Ellen White says that the whole race of men was restored to God’s favor in Christ, and of course not all men are in Christ.
T: She wrote the following:
quote:
He took in His grasp the world over which Satan claimed to preside as his lawful territory, and by His wonderful work in giving His life, He restored the whole race of men to favor with God. (1SM 343)
This is not restricted in any way. In fact, the expression "the whole race of men" makes it as clear as can possibly be made what Christ accomplished includes everyone.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13546
06/03/05 04:57 PM
06/03/05 04:57 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
R: This is a reply from the thread "Salvation of the Wicked". Tom, Saying that Jesus delivers us from our own wrath to come (1 Thess. 1:10), that we will be saved from our own wrath (Rom. 5:9), that we must flee from our own wrath to come (Matt. 3:7) does not make any sense at all. T: You quoted two texts, 1 Thess. 1:10 and Rom. 5:9 as stating that we are saved from the "wrath of God." I simply pointed out that this is not what the texts say. They speak of "wrath." I discussed the text in Romans. R: You shouldn’t be so influenced by Waggoner’s views. T: Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith was specifically endorced very strongly by E. G. White. She said he understood the subject better than she did. You rely on her writings to a very great degree, so given that is the case, and given she recognized Waggoner as an authority, then why shouldn't I be influenced by what he said? R:Who said God is angry with sinners? God is antipathetic to sin. T: No one disagrees with this. This question had to do with how the word "wrath" is being used in Romans. Waggoner's argument is that propitiation has to do with wrath being appeased, but it's not God's wrath. Therefore it must be man's. This was the point being addressed. R: The subject is very simple. God has been restraining His wrath against sin for a long time, but He has set a Day when He will finally manifest this wrath. On that Day, everybody who is in sin will be lost and meet destruction. But, by His own grace, by accepting His sacrifice, we may flee from this wrath, be saved from this wrath which will fall upon the world; for being saved from sin means, among other things, being saved from the just wrath of God against sin. T: I don't have any problem with any of the above, but it should be understood that God's wrath is His allowing the wicked to reap that which they have sown. It's not something arbitrary that God does, but is the inevitable result of sin. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, destroys the wicked. R:“May the converting power of God come upon the churches, that they may feel a burden for souls, for the souls for whom Christ died, and seek to save them before the day of God's wrath breaks over the world.” {SW, February 12, 1907 par. 10} “That Lamb whose wrath will be so terrible to the scorners of His grace will be grace and righteousness and love and blessing to all who have received Him. The pillar of cloud that was dark with terror and avenging wrath to the Egyptians, was to the people of God a pillar of fire for brightness. So will it be to the Lord's people in these last days. The light and glory of God to His commandment-keeping people are darkness to the unbelieving. They see that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. The arm, long stretched, strong to save all who come unto Him, is strong to execute His judgment upon all who would not come unto Him that they might have life. God grant that while mercy still lingers, while the voice of invitation is still heard, there will be a turning unto the Lord. The sure provision has been made to shelter every soul and shield those who have kept His commandments until the indignation be overpast.” {TMK 356.4} “I was then pointed to the flattering things taught by some of these transgressors of God's law. I was shown a bright light, given by God to guide all who would walk in the way of salvation, and also to serve as a warning to the sinner to flee from the wrath of God, and yield a willing obedience to his claims.” {2SG 275, 276} T: These statements should be interpreted in the light of what EGW wrote in "The Destruction of Jersualem," shouldn't they? She wrote: 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. 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 36)
quote:
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)
These quotes makes the principles of God's wrath clear. God finally withdraws His Spirit from those who have persistenly resisted Him. Without God's protection, the wicked our destroyed. This is His wrath.
Old Tom:God intervenes in the case of Satan by not manifesting His glory to him, because to do so would result in his death. God does manifest His glory to the holy angels, and this is life to them.
R: In this sense, I agree.
T: Good, some common ground.
Old Tom:Yes, and a number of your posts seem to indicate that you believe that angels have immortality of themselves. You wrote something like God created angels so that they live forever. Phil Blanc has noticed and commented on the same thing.
Tom and Ikan,
The following text also could bring additional light about Luke 20:36:
“Man was to be tested and proved, and if he should bear the test of God, and remain loyal and true after the first trial, he was not to be beset with continual temptations; but was to be exalted equal with the angels, and henceforth immortal.”--RH Feb. 24, 1874. {TA 50.1}
Although in a sense it is true that God keeps our hearts beating, and the stars in their orbits, our own experience shows us that many of these processes are automatized. For instance, in a sense it is true that God brings every human being to existence, but how does He do it? He implanted the principle of life in the human cells, therefore the process of reproduction is automatized. Thus, there is a potential human being in a frozen embryo in a laboratory, and any individual may be cloned; and if a human being is born with a physical or mental handicap, this does not mean that God has specifically chosen a given defective cell to be joined to another to form that human being. Therefore, God created man to perpetuate his immortality by partaking of the tree of life, and failing to partake of that tree led man to deteriorated health and temporal death. This is not true of angels, however; their life doesn’t depend on anything, but directly on God. Thus, they are immortal _ until God chooses to remove their lives.
T: I don't know what the "in a sense" means. There's no need to qualify God's involvement in life. It's not simply the tree of life which sustains man, but man receives life directly from God, precisely as the angels do. Man is not eating from the tree of life now, yet he lives. How? By the direct intervention of God. If God were to get distracted for even a microsecond, His children, whether men or angels, would die. It takes God's active power to sustain life.
R: Additionally, Ellen White says that it was by His death that Christ secured Satan’s death and brought Satan under the dominion of death:
“Satan is the author of death. What did Christ do after He brought Satan under the dominion of death? The very last words of Christ while expiring on the cross were, "It is finished" (John 19:30). The devil saw that he had overdone himself. Christ by dying accomplished the death of Satan and brought immortality to light.” {FW 73.4}
T: This must be understood in the sense spoken of here:
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. (DA 764)
That is, the text you quote is not making the point that God was unable to effect Satan's death before Christ's death in the sense of not having the power to do so. But on moral grounds He chose not to, because the results of have left an evil seed of doubt. Christ's death, by making clear the nature of death, made it possible for God to allow Satan to reap the full result of his sin, and now that death has been seen (i.e. the second death, which is the wages of sin, which Christ "tasted") it is safe for God to allow Satan to die without that death being misunderstood.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13547
06/03/05 06:04 PM
06/03/05 06:04 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
R: The problem we are discussing is, if God didn’t remove Satan’s life, how would he die? What effect of sin would make him die?
T: These are two different questions. The answer to the first question is that if God simply ceased giving Satan life, he would die. God doesn't have to remove Satan's life, because the only life Satan has is that which comes from God. If God were to stop sustaining life for even an instant, it would cease. Satan has no life in and of himself, but only that which God gives to him. This first question doesn't have to do with sin, as any creature, whether sinless or not, depends upon God for life. No creature has life inherently.
The answer to the second question is that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked. Satan and all those who have followed him form characters so out of harmony with God that His presence becomes to them a consuming fire. It is this effect of sin which causes Satan to die.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
