|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,217
Members1,326
| |
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
|
|
|
8 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, Daryl, daylily, TheophilusOne, 3 invisible),
2,461
guests, and 13
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15397
09/06/05 08:09 PM
09/06/05 08:09 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
Tom:Didn't he die in the Red Sea?
You were right, after all, about pharaoh; although most quotes say his armies or his hosts were destroyed, I’ve found a quote which says that he also died in the Red Sea - 4T 25.2.
quote:
This is talking about physical calamities which cause physical death. Satan is the destroyer. He destroys when God permits him to do his destroying work.
Tom, there is no doubt Satan sends calamities and is the destroyer par excellence. A destroyer is someone whose main purpose is destroying.
However, although God could never be described as a destroyer, this doesn’t mean He never destroys.
What I see is that the passages which say that God destroys no one, and which use pharaoh as an example, deal primarily with the sin against the Holy Spirit, that is, the destruction of the soul. About physical destruction, what Ellen White says in relation to him is,
“Pharaoh once proudly inquired, ‘Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice?’ He learned by his own experience that it was He that hath power to create or to destroy.” {ST, November 4, 1880 par. 9}
Although many times the wrath of God is manifested in His no longer shielding sinners from Satan’s power, I see no evidence that this is always the case. Summarizing what we've been discussing:
1- In the case of the antediluvians and of the Egyptians, I still sincerely can see no solid evidence for the argument that nature was responsible for these destructions, especially in the destruction of the Egyptians, whrere it is clear that both the opening and the closing of the sea were acts of God’s power.
2- In the case of God’s commanding His people to kill, I still sincerely can see no evidence that it was a permission and not a command. Especially when I read passages like the following:
“Moses' work for Israel was almost done; yet one more act remained for the aged leader to perform, ere he should go to his long rest. ‘Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites,’ was the divine command; ‘afterward thou shalt be gathered unto thy people.’ This mandate was communicated to Israel, not as the word of Moses, but of Christ, their invisible leader; and it was immediately obeyed. One thousand men were selected from each of the tribes of Israel, and sent out against the Midianites. In the battles which followed, that people were defeated, with great slaughter.
“The men who promptly and speedily executed the divine judgments upon those heathen nations have been pronounced harsh and unmerciful in destroying so many human lives. But all who reason thus, fail to understand the character and dealings of God. In his infinite mercy, the Lord had long spared those idolatrous nations, giving them evidence upon evidence that he, the mighty Jehovah, was the God whom they should serve. He had commanded Moses not to make war upon Moab or Midian, for their cup of iniquity was not yet full. ...
“When the king of Moab had called Balaam to pronounce a curse upon Israel, and thus accomplish their destruction, the goodness and mercy of God was strikingly displayed. ... The Moabites themselves could see that it was the power of God which controlled the avaricious prophet, and compelled him in the most exalted strains of inspiration to proclaim Israel God's chosen, and his almighty power her protection. Here the last ray of light shone upon a stiff-necked people who had set their wills in defiance to the will of God. When, at the suggestion of Balaam, the snare was laid for Israel, which resulted in the destruction of many thousands, then it was that the Midianites filled up the measure of their iniquities. Then their day of probation ended, the door of mercy was to them closed, and the mandate went forth from Him who can create and can destroy, ‘Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles.'" {ST, January 6, 1881}
About the life of Christ. You said, for instance, that you consider legitimate for God to cease sustaining life, like in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. But where in the life of Christ do we see Him doing this?
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15398
09/06/05 09:58 PM
09/06/05 09:58 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
R:Tom, there is no doubt Satan sends calamities and is the destroyer par excellence. A destroyer is someone whose main purpose is destroying. However, although God could never be described as a destroyer, this doesn’t mean He never destroys. Tom:I made this same point, and asked the question as to why. The reason I see is that the way that God destroys is fundamentally different than the way Satan destroys. Satan destroys according to the way we would expect. God destroys according to the description in GC 35-37 and other places; He removes His sustaining/protecting hand. R:What I see is that the passages which say that God destroys no one, and which use pharaoh as an example, deal primarily with the sin against the Holy Spirit, that is, the destruction of the soul. About physical destruction, what Ellen White says in relation to him is, “Pharaoh once proudly inquired, ‘Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice?’ He learned by his own experience that it was He that hath power to create or to destroy.” {ST, November 4, 1880 par. 9} Although many times the wrath of God is manifested in His no longer shielding sinners from Satan’s power, I see no evidence that this is always the case. Tom:Why would you assume it's not always the case? Why would you need additional evidence from the general principle? There are so many Scriptures which say something like this: quote:
"Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?
And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods." (Deut 31:17, 18)
This IS the description of God's wrath. Why assume that God's wrath means something different? There's no place in Scripture which describes God's wrath any differently, as "not hiding My face" or "not forsaking them", so there's no reason to assume that sometimes God's wrath = God's forsaking them and sometimes God's wrath = not forsaking them.
R:Summarizing what we've been discussing:
1- In the case of the antediluvians and of the Egyptians, I still sincerely can see no solid evidence for the argument that nature was responsible for these destructions, especially in the destruction of the Egyptians, whrere it is clear that both the opening and the closing of the sea were acts of God’s power.
Tom:Nature was obviously responsible. The Egyptians drowned. They weren't killed in some unknown supernatural way. They were drowned. God was controling nature. He maintained His protection for the Isralites, who desired it, and didn't for the Egyptians, who didn't.
I'm not arguing that nature was responsible for their death apart from God's actions, but that God's actions were in harmony with His character, which is to withdraw when His presence is not desired. God forsook the Egyptians, which led to their ruin, just as forsaking the Israelites would lead to their ruin, as described in Deut. 31.
R: 2- In the case of God’s commanding His people to kill, I still sincerely can see no evidence that it was a permission and not a command. Especially when I read passages like the following:
Tom: The evidence is Jesus Christ. In Him is revealed the character of God. Everything we can know of God was revealed by His life. If you can't find something in His life which reveals what you think you see in God's character, something isn't right.
Regarding the question of God's killing by witholding grace, I see the fig tree as illustrating the same principle. The fig tree died because God witheld His grace from it (according to EGW's description in DA).
Now where is an example of Christ taking up a sword and killing somebody? Or of Christ sending pestilence on someone? Isn't the very idea laughable? When the disciples urged Him to destroy, He told them they didn't know what spirit they were of. Destroying is not what Christ was about; that's another spirit. Christ was about doing good. He healed and restored. He manifested the character of God.
There can be no more conclusive sign that we are manifesting the spirit of Satan than the disposition to harm and destroy those who do not appreciate our work. The last resort of every false religion is the use of force. Force is not a principle of God's government. I do not see how the viewpoint you are presenting harmonizes with these principles, nor how it harmonizes with the life of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15399
09/07/05 12:48 PM
09/07/05 12:48 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
Tom:Why would you assume it's not always the case? Why would you need additional evidence from the general principle? There are so many Scriptures which say something like this:
Who said this is a general principle? There are so many Scriptures which say something like this:
“And Israel joined himself unto Baal of Peor, and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel’” (Numb. 25:3,4).
I don’t agree that the difference between God and Satan is in the manner of destruction – that is, Satan destroys actively and God destroys passively.
In fact, there is no difference in destroying actively and in destroying passively. God Himself teaches this in the story of David and Uriah. Although David did not personally take the life of Uriah, he is still accused of having “struck down Uriah the Hittitie with the sword” (2 Sam. 12:9).
The difference between God and Satan is in the motivation for destruction. Satan destroys to make others suffer, God destroys in mercy – mercy to those who are destroyed and mercy to others for whom they became a menace.
There should also be pointed out that there is a difference between God’s departing from a person or nation, and God’s destruction of a person or nation.
King Saul did not represent a menace to Israel, and the Israelites did not represent a menace to the world. God departed from them, but God did not appoint them to destruction.
This was not, however, the case of pharaoh’s army, who constituted a menace to God’s people; of the antediluvians who, if not destroyed, would cause the whole earth to be engulfed by sin and the knowledge of God to become extinct; of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose immorality would spread and contaminate the world; of the canaanite nations, whose idolatry and immorality was a threat to the diffusion of God’s knowledge; of the idolaters among Israel who would contaminate the whole nation. Of Ananias and Sapphira, of whom it is said, “Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized” (AA 74).
When God is forced to appoint someone to destruction, He doesn’t have to hide behind someone or something to do the dirty work. He Himself chooses and commands the instruments to perform His will – whether nature, or people or angels.
A last word about Ananias and Sapphira. Since God is the source of all life, removing the connection of life from a being having to borrow life from Him is depriving that person of life. No matter how one slices it, to deprive another being of life is killing them, and this is not a form of passive, but of active destruction.
Bringing destruction upon the wicked is not something God takes pleasure in, as I said, but rather an action that must be taken to prevent sin from becoming an unchecked destructive force. The taking of life from the wicked is an act of mercy and love for both the righteous and the wicked alike, to preserve His people and His knowledge on earth. And this is in perfect harmony with the character of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15400
09/07/05 01:20 PM
09/07/05 01:20 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Rosangela, I'll respond to your post in more detail later, as I have more opportunity, but I'll repeat my question which I've asked a few times, which is where in the life of Christ do you see God acting in the way you suppose He acts? Given that all we can know about God was revealed in the life of His Son, where in Christ's life is it revealed that God inflicts those who oppose Him with terrible diseases? Where did Christ every hurt, let alone kill, anybody in the way you are suggesting?
Another question, if your way of viewing things were correct, one would have expected Christ at some time to have attributed some act of destruction/disease/death to God. Why is it that not once did God attribute any such act to God, of all the people the He healed, or all the people He was asked about? (e.g. why was this one blind, why did these ones die)
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15401
09/07/05 01:24 PM
09/07/05 01:24 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, I agree, of course, with Rosangela's post (above) regarding the differences and similarities between God causing and permitting active and/or passive death and destruction.
"God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways ...." Either way it is God who kills and destroys them.
Concerning your question about the character of Christ - it was Jesus who punished and killed and destroyed unsaved sinners in the OT.
There is nothing ambiguous in the testimonies about who or what caused the Flood that killed millions. Very clearly Jesus used water from above and beneath the earth to punish and to kill the Antediluvians. Again, the wrath of God is love – whether we understand it or not.
Jesus said of Himself - "I kill." Deut 32:39. Rather than twist the meaning of this passage it would behoove us to seek to understand the truth. In light of this truth holy angels proclaim:
Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15402
09/07/05 07:19 PM
09/07/05 07:19 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom:Why would you assume it's not always the case? Why would you need additional evidence from the general principle? There are so many Scriptures which say something like this: R:Who said this is a general principle? Tom:It's in the Bible, so God did. That is, God laid out the principle. Here's the text again: quote:
"Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?
And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods." (Deut 31:17, 18)
This text shows that God's angers is manifest in His forsaking the one against whom He is angry. In order for you to show this is not a general principle, you would have to produce an incident where God was angry, yet did NOT forsake the one against whom He was angry.
R:There are so many Scriptures which say something like this:
“And Israel joined himself unto Baal of Peor, and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel’” (Numb. 25:3,4).
Tom:We know that God presents Himself as doing that which He permits, and that God is like Jesus. Or rather, God is Jesus. When we've seen Christ, we've seen the Father. All that we can know about God was revealed in the life of Jesus Christ. So unless you can show me something in the life of Christ which corresponds to what you think you are seeing in God's character, I'll have to conclude that you are seeing something which isn't there.
Here's another way to arrive at the same conclusion that if we see God in a different way than He is revealed in Christ, then there's something wrong with the we are seeing Him. Jesus said He did what He saw His Father doing, and spoke what He heard His Father say. Where did Jesus learn about God? From the Old Testatement, which was the only Scripture He had. Now what did Jesus reveal about God? He revealed a God who is totally different than the orthodox view.
The orthodox view is that God is "tooth for tooth" "eye for eye". But Jesus said,
quote:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.(Matt. 5:38-45)
To be children of God is to be like Him in character. God's character is just like what Jesus laid out for us to be like. God loves His enemies. He does good to them. God's enemies destroy themselves by causing God to forsake them.
R:I don’t agree that the difference between God and Satan is in the manner of destruction – that is, Satan destroys actively and God destroys passively.
In fact, there is no difference in destroying actively and in destroying passively.
Tom:You keep flip-flopping on this. You started out saying there was no difference, and I asked you if you didn't think there was a difference, why did you argue so strongly against the idea. And you said, "Can I be honest?" You said you could respect a God who said, "If you are not worthy, I will take your life away." Now you are back to saying it doesn't make any difference.
R:God Himself teaches this in the story of David and Uriah. Although David did not personally take the life of Uriah, he is still accused of having “struck down Uriah the Hittitie with the sword” (2 Sam. 12:9).
Tom:This is in no way analagous to destruction occuring because God removes His sustaining/protecting hand. Your example is more analagous to running someone over with a car, and then saying you were not active in killing the person; the car was.
R:The difference between God and Satan is in the motivation for destruction.
Tom:Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations. The end does not justify the means. God does not act contrary to the principles of His government.
"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government."(DA 22)"Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work." (6T 388)"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." (MH 113) ""There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." (DA 487)
God always acts in harmony with these principles. Not only are His motives pure, but His actions are as well; God always acts in accordance with the principles of His government, which are simply that outworking of the attributes of His character. God always acts like Jesus Christ.
R:Satan destroys to make others suffer, God destroys in mercy – mercy to those who are destroyed and mercy to others for whom they became a menace.
Tom:It's true that the motives are different, but not only are the motives different, the manner is different too. God destroys be forsaking those who have rejected Him. When God removes His protecting/sustaining hand, ruin results. This same principle is evident in the destruction of the Egpytians, the destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of Christ, the final destruction of the wicked; whatever. You will see that in each and every case the Spirit of Prophesy points out that the wicked have destroyed themselves.
R:There should also be pointed out that there is a difference between God’s departing from a person or nation, and God’s destruction of a person or nation.
Tom:You have asserted this, but have not given any reason why this should be the case. I pointed out that Jer. 18 and Ezek. 18 espouse the same principles, whereas one is dealing with nations and the other with individuals. Also the desctriptions in GC 35-37 and DA 764 are viturally identical, and one deals with a nation, whereas the other with an individual.
The basic premise is that God gives favor to individuals or nations on the basis of obedience to His law. When an entity is disobedient, then ruin follows, whether the entity by a nation or an individual. One could probably find this principle stated dozens of times in the Spirit of Prophesy for both.
I'm curious as to why you would assert such a principle. There must be something which you see applies to either nations or individuals, but not to the other.
R:King Saul did not represent a menace to Israel, and the Israelites did not represent a menace to the world. God departed from them, but God did not appoint them to destruction.
Tom:According to the Scriptures, God killed Saul, and God destroyed Jerusalem. So He did appoint them to destruction.
R:This was not, however, the case of pharaoh’s army, who constituted a menace to God’s people; of the antediluvians who, if not destroyed, would cause the whole earth to be engulfed by sin and the knowledge of God to become extinct; of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose immorality would spread and contaminate the world; of the canaanite nations, whose idolatry and immorality was a threat to the diffusion of God’s knowledge; of the idolaters among Israel who would contaminate the whole nation. Of Ananias and Sapphira, of whom it is said, “Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized” (AA 74).
Tom:When God's Spirit is stubornly rejected to the point where His voice will no longer be heard, God abandons the person/nation according to their choice, and ruin results.
R:When God is forced to appoint someone to destruction, He doesn’t have to hide behind someone or something to do the dirty work.
Tom:God doesn't do any dirty work. God is good. He is just like Jesus.
R:He Himself chooses and commands the instruments to perform His will – whether nature, or people or angels.
Tom:Or Satan. Shouldn't he be included in the list?
R:A last word about Ananias and Sapphira. Since God is the source of all life, removing the connection of life from a being having to borrow life from Him is depriving that person of life. No matter how one slices it, to deprive another being of life is killing them, and this is not a form of passive, but of active destruction.
Tom:According to this way of thinking, God kills everybody. God quits sustaining every human being sooner or later, so that would lead one to the conclusion that God kills everyone, or if you wanted to exclude those who die by violent means, He kills everybody who doesn't die violently.
It appears to me you think people have life inherently, but this isn't the case. Noone has life in themselves, except for God. God gives people an existance for awhile in order to see what character they will develop. He is under no obligation to give anyone life, and indeed it is only by His infinite grace that we have life at all. To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life. Our life is a gift of God, provided at infinite cost. It is not an inherent entitlement. For God to discontinue giving us life, which He is providing at infinite cost, when we have indicated we want nothing to do with us is in no way whatsoever equivalent to His killing us. It's like this:
quote:
The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.(DA 764)
A person cutting themself off from life is not the same thing as God killing them.
R:Bringing destruction upon the wicked is not something God takes pleasure in, as I said, but rather an action that must be taken to prevent sin from becoming an unchecked destructive force.
Tom:No, this isn't true. Sin is self-destructive. God must take actions to allow sin to exist. Notice again from DA 764:
quote:
God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.
At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.
The inevitable result of sin is death. God actually does something to prevent death from occuring. God is under no obligation to do this thing. If we choose to cut ourselves off from life, God will abide by our decision.
R:The taking of life from the wicked is an act of mercy and love for both the righteous and the wicked alike, to preserve His people and His knowledge on earth. And this is in perfect harmony with the character of Jesus Christ.
Tom:The wicked cut themselves off from life. God will accept the voluntary decision of the wicked to not continue their life. What ends their life is not an arbitrary action on the part of God, but their own choice. They reap what they have sown. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, destroys the wicked. God doesn't do one thing to the righteous and another to the wicked, but the same thing, the revelation of His character, has to different effets.
To prove that the taking of the life of the wicked is in harmony with the character of Jesus Christ it suffices to adduce an event in His life where He actually did this; i.e. where Christ actually took the life of a wicked person. Actually, providing evidence that Christ even condoned such a thing would be helpful.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15403
09/07/05 07:27 PM
09/07/05 07:27 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Mike, didn't you realize that the quote was referencing Christ's life here on earth? I find it hard to believe you didn't know that. Here's some more of the quote: quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1}
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." John 1:18. {8T 286.2}
Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth--in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}
Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}
"The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, . . . full of grace and truth." Verse 14. {8T 286.5}
"Unto the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world,'' He said, "I manifested Thy name," "that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them." John 17:6, A. R. V., 26. {8T 286.6}
"Love your enemies," He bade them; "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven;" "for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." "He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." "Be ye therefore merciful, as
287
your Father also is merciful." Matthew 5:44, 45; Luke 6: 35, 36. {8T 286.7}
So where in Christ's earthly life does one find the picture of God's character you would espouse? I don't see it anywhere, Mike.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15404
09/08/05 12:59 PM
09/08/05 12:59 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom, While you keep saying that God can’t do this or that because Jesus didn’t do this or that while He was on earth, you fail to offer an explanation for the passages which go against your viewpoint. Jesus couldn’t possibly do everything while He was on earth. He didn’t establish a tribunal to judge anyone while He was here, He didn’t reign as King, however this doesn’t mean He wouldn’t do so at a later point in History. quote:
This text shows that God's angers is manifest in His forsaking the one against whom He is angry.
And Numbers 25:3,4 shows that God’s anger is also sometimes manifest in inflicting direct punishment on transgressors.
“The Lord is regarded as cruel, by many, in requiring his people to make war with other nations. They say that it is contrary to his benevolent character. But he who made the world, and formed man to dwell upon the earth, has unlimited control over all the works of his hands; and it is his right to do as he pleases, and what he pleases, with the work of his hands. Man has no right to say to his Maker, Why doest thou thus? There is no injustice in his character. He is the ruler of the world, and a large portion of his subjects have rebelled against his authority, and have trampled upon his law. ... God has borne with them until they filled up the measure of their iniquity, and then he has brought upon them swift destruction. He has used his people as instruments of his wrath, to punish wicked nations who have vexed them, and seduced them into idolatry.
“A family picture was presented before me: A part of the children seem anxious to learn and obey the requirements of the father, while the others trample upon his authority, and seem to exult in showing contempt of his family government. They share the benefits of their father's house, and are constantly receiving of his bounty; they are wholly dependent upon him for all they receive, yet are not grateful, but conduct themselves proudly, as though all the favors they received of their indulgent parent were supplied by themselves. The father notices all the disrespectful acts of his disobedient, ungrateful children, yet he bears with them.
“At length, these rebellious children go still further, and seek to influence and lead to rebellion those members of their father's family who have hitherto been faithful. Then all the dignity and authority of the father is called into action; and he expels from his house the rebellious children, who have not only abused his love and blessings themselves, but tried to subvert the remaining few who had submitted to the wise and judicious laws of their father's household.
“For the sake of the few who are loyal, whose happiness was exposed to the seditious influence of the rebellious members of his household, he separates his undutiful children from his family, while at the same time he labors to bring the remaining faithful and loyal ones closer to himself. All would honor the wise and just course of such a parent, in punishing most severely his undutiful, rebellious children.
“God has dealt thus with his children.” {1 SP 329, 330}
quote:
Tom:You keep flip-flopping on this. You started out saying there was no difference, and I asked you if you didn't think there was a difference, why did you argue so strongly against the idea. And you said, "Can I be honest?" You said you could respect a God who said, "If you are not worthy, I will take your life away." Now you are back to saying it doesn't make any difference.
It is you who are not understanding what I say. What I’m saying is that, in terms of responsibility for the act, there is NO difference. In each case, you are the sole responsible for the death of those involved. (In the example of the dam, which mayor is less guilty of the death of the whole city? He who opened the floodgates or he who removed the reinforcement system?) In terms of honesty, the second is worse, because you are just trying to evade or hide your responsibility in the death of those involved.
In the case of the Egyptians, for instance, God was controlling nature. Nature was just an instrument of God. Satan wasn't controlling it and nature wasn't controlling itself.
quote:
Tom:Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations.
Then you have to prove that killing is always wrong.
quote:
The basic premise is that God gives favor to individuals or nations on the basis of obedience to His law. When an entity is disobedient, then ruin follows
Look, there are emergency situations in which God cannot just sit and expect ruin to follow. Satan didn’t want the antediluvians to die, but to live in defiance of God’s law. Maybe they would have destroyed themselves, but by then there would no longer be a single righteous on the face of the earth. For the sake of those 8 righteous, who would preserve God’s knowledge and the lineage of the Messiah, and for the sake of the antediluvians themselves, who were spoiling themselves and one another, these people must die. You spoke about God restraining the subterranean waters, although you failed to provide solid evidence that God has to continually protect us from nature. But, besides that, it had never rained before. Who sent the rain from heaven? Or was this another thing that God has to protect us from?
quote:
Tom:According to the Scriptures, God killed Saul, and God destroyed Jerusalem. So He did appoint them to destruction.
The Jews are alive and well on earth and will still have a part in the last-day events.
quote:
Tom:God doesn't do any dirty work. God is good. He is just like Jesus.
There is dirty work to be done in order to clean God’s kingdom from evil but, according to you, the dirty work will be done by itself.
quote:
Tom:Or Satan. Shouldn't he be included in the list?
No, I don’t believe God uses Satan as His instrument. He overrules Satan’s perversity and uses what Satan meant for evil to accomplish His purposes, as in the case of Job, or Joseph.
quote:
Tom:According to this way of thinking, God kills everybody.
I believe that God keeps the heart beating in the sense that it was He who implanted the principle of life in our cells, but I don’t think that it is God who stops the heart (except, of course, in cases like that of Ananias and Sapphira). However, I think that God can, sometimes, prolong life.
I'll stop here. This has become a very long (quilometrico) post.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15405
09/08/05 12:59 PM
09/08/05 12:59 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, are you assuming Jesus in the OT and Jesus in the NT are two different gods? If not, then what can we learn about the character of God in the OT? And, in particular, what can we learn about God in the Flood?
Jesus said, "I kill." What does it mean? "God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways ...." Either way it is God who kills and destroys them.
You seem to believe the idea of God killing unsaved sinners is bad or wrong, that it contradicts your view of God's character. Well, what if your view is wrong? What if, as holy angels obviously believe, God killing unsaved sinners is right and righteous? Then what?
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15406
09/09/05 02:34 AM
09/09/05 02:34 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Mike, the truth is that the OT God and Jesus Christ are one in the same, but we have misunderstood God. It is for this purpose that Christ came, to teach us the truth about God. quote:
The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. {DA 22.1}
In order to clear up our misconceptions about God, we need to look at the solution which God gave to our problem of misunderstanding Him, which is Jesus Christ. Even the angels could not understand God correctly until Christ came on the scene. If even they had misunderstandings regarding God's character until Christ came, we can see how much we need the revelation of God's character which Christ came to give.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
