|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,218
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 (Daryl, Karen Y, dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, 3 invisible),
2,462
guests, and 12
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15417
09/11/05 04:58 AM
09/11/05 04:58 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Mike, it's true that God used water above and beneath the earth to cause the flood, although from what I've read from both creation science literature and the Spirit of Prophesy (especially Rosangela's post where she cited a section saying God made use of water beneath the earth) it was primarily the waters beneath that were used. I think everyone agrees that it was the water from below which precipitated the flood. The only difference between your position and mine is I believe that God was working to prevent the waters beneath the earth from bursting forth until the time was right, whereas you believe God was not preventing anything but merely acting. Rosangela agreed that my suggestion was possible, although she sees no evidence for it. I don't know whether you think it is possible or not. The reason what I'm suggesting makes sense to me is that it agrees with the principles the Spirit of Prophesy gives, such as the seven I quoted for Rosangela. In particular, I do not see how you view of God's character fits with what Jesus Christ revealed. According to the Spirit of Prophesy, all that we need to know of God, or can know of God, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ in His humanity. She also states that every truth from Genesis to Revelation must be studied in the light that streams from Calvary to be properly understood. If you could relate your ideas to either of these two points, that would be helpful. Regarding the angels being confused, the point you made is controverted by the chapter "It Is Finished". E.g. quote:
Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion.(DA 758)
The angels *were* confused, and it was not until Jesus Christ came to this earth, especially at His death, that their confusion was cleared up. Even for them the death of Christ was necessary to clear things up. This is why I'm interested in your relating the character of Christ, especially His death, to this subject.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15418
09/11/05 05:29 AM
09/11/05 05:29 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Thank you for your suggestion on keeping posts shorter. I looked back over my posts, and noticed that most of them are of acceptable length. However a few of them, in particular some responding to Rosangela are indeed too long. Certainly this last one where I responded to her is. Thanks for brining this to my attention. quote:
Mike suggests you are missing something. I would suggest to you one aspect you're not paying enough attention to is the sovereignty of God. It is God who is the King. He enforces His laws. Everyone will give account to Him. We will all stand before His judgement seat.
This idea seems to me to suggest that God's laws are arbitrary, as if breaking them was not punishment in and of itself, which is what I believe. Sin (which is transgression of the law) pays it wages: death. This principle is very well explained in DA 764.
quote:
Satan wants us to either believe God is a dictator or that He is only merciful. But He is not only merciful. As King, he is also just.
There's no conflict in the attributes of God's character. God is love. That love is manifest in justice and in mercy. In point of fact, God's justice is His mercy. The following Scriptures point this out:
quote:
"Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isaiah 1:17)
"This is what the LORD says: "`Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed" (Jeremiah 21:12)
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: `Administer true justice: show mercy and compassion to one another. (Zechariah 7:9)
"Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice".( Isaiah 30:18)
Finally in the earlier post I asked you, "So where in Christ's life do we see the destructive character ascribed to God?" to which you reponded, "The clearest example would be in the cursing of the fig tree." to which I demonstrated that the fig tree demonstrated the principle that one is destroyed by cutting oneself off from God's grace, which is what I have been asserting all along.
Hence my question to you from that post still stands: in Christ's life do we see the destructive character ascribed to God?
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15419
09/11/05 05:41 AM
09/11/05 05:41 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Daniel, you quoted me at lenghth, but you didn't address a single point I made. All you did was bold a portion from Ezekiel. I don't know why you quoted from from the Desire of Ages to do that. Why not just quote straight from Ezekiel? The words were his, not Ellen White's. In many instances in Scripture, God presents Himself as doing what He permits. The best answer I know of your quote, where God says He will destoy Satan, is to present what follows from the Desire of Ages, where the Spirit of Prophesy explains in a very detailed fashion what she means. So I'm just reposting what you posted, but since what I'm posting *follows* what you posted, it explains your question: quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. 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. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. 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. (DA 764)
This brings out:
1)The destruction of the wicked is not an arbitrary act of power from God, but rather something the wicked cause themselves.
2)The reap what they have sown.
3)They cut themselves off from life.
4)The glory of God, who is love, destroys them.
In DA 108 she writes that "the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked."
Notice that it is the same thing which results in both life for the righteous and death to the wicked. This demonstrates that it is not an arbitary action on the part of God which causes the death of the wicked, but they bring about their own destruction, just as the Spirit of Prophesy states.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15420
09/11/05 01:09 PM
09/11/05 01:09 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom, You are carrying to an extreme the fact that sometimes God tolerates some things because His people is not yet prepared to understand the whole truth, and implying that God bends to their wishes and does things as they want. It was God who instituted the death penalty under the old covenant and it was God who commanded His people to destroy the canaanite nations. This is told in the Bible and confirmed by Ellen White. A parable is easily recognized as such, and there is no parable involved here. Ellen White is neither explaining a parable, nor making a parable to explain a biblical historical fact. She makes it crystal clear that the idea did not arise with the people but that it was a direct command of God. quote:
Tom:The principle that we have is that all that we need to know or can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son:
And as I said, there is no disharmony at all between God’s character and His taking life in mercy.
quote:
then the only way the idolaters could die would be for God to cease His protecting and sustaining work.
What you are saying is that God ceased to protect them from their own brethren, who wished to kill them with swords. Your explanation not only pictures Moses as a monster, but also makes God contradictory. You say that God did not wish them to be killed by sword, but the fact is that He not only commended but rewarded those who performed this act.
quote:
Regarding actions, God has options available to us that we do not have, since we are not the Sustainer of the universe, and do not protect from the forces of nature and of the forces of evil.
Is it correct for a father to use others to expel his children from his house? What does this reveal about such a father?
quote:
It appears to me that you believe that it is exactly by force and authority that God administers His government.
A ruler establishes the rules for his kingdom and gives all his subjects time to accept or reject those rules, telling them plainly that all those who reject the rules will not be permitted to remain in the kingdom. Rebels are not only a threat to the loyal subjects but also make the kingdom an unhappy place. After the time expires, is he using force if he expels the rebels from his kingdom?
quote:
Had He removed His protecting power from the Red Sea, the Israelites would have drowned. God was under no obligation to continue His protection once the Israelites had reached the other side for a people who had made it clear that they did not desire His protection.
He wouldn't have had to protect the israelites from the sea if He hadn't interfered in the sea in the first place. If you build a dam of course you have to protect people from the water, and you are the sole responsible for the death of people if you explode the dam.
quote:
This is elementary logic.
I’m not good at phylosophy, but anyone can see that your logic is faulty.
Wrong acts are not sanitized by right motivations. This is ALWAYS true.
Killing is wrong. This is NOT ALWAYS true.
You can't compare what is true with what is not always true; that's what I'm trying to say. If you want to compare the two then prove that killing is always wrong.
quote:
Tom:It took longer than that. It took thousands of years.
No, forty years after God definitely removed His protection. The point is, ruin was not immediate, which is what you want to prove.
quote:
The earth would be destroyed apart from the loving care which God provides.
Any unfallen planet would be destroyed apart from the loving care God provides.
quote:
Tom:You are asserting that the destruction of the Canaanites was not due to their choice?
Not in the same sense of the destruction of Jerusalem. God did not command the Romans to destroy Jerusalem as He commanded His people to destroy the canaanites.
quote:
Your view seems to hold that sin is powerless. It is not a destructive force.
Sin is so bad that, were it not for God, it would destroy all good and still remain.
quote:
Death is of the devil.
The point is that by saying that God removes His sustaining care so that our heart stops beating, you are virtually saying that death is of God, not of Satan.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15421
09/12/05 02:29 AM
09/12/05 02:29 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, there is no evidence to support the idea that God simply stopped holding in check the inevitable, impending forces that caused the Flood. Even if such an idea were true, it doesn't make God any less responsible than if He had commanded the waters that killed millions of unsaved sinners.
Nature obeys fixed laws. True, God upholds the laws, but He isn't running around preventing the forces of nature from disobeying His laws. As you have pointed out so many times - God is not a God of force.
No, Tom, the holy angels were not confused by the actions God took during the Flood. Yes, they did not clearly understand Satan's accusations until the Cross, but that doesn't have anything to do with God killing millions with a Flood. They rejoiced with Jesus in that the world was purged of evildoers.
Yes, Jesus revealed the character of God when He walked the earth as a man. But to force your favorite SOP quote to mean Jesus never killed anyone in the OT, or that He will not kill anyone in the lake of fire, is putting words in her mouth that do not belong there.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15422
09/11/05 05:23 PM
09/11/05 05:23 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
It's my desire to be thorough, yet at the same time heed Mark's suggestion to be brief. The only way that pops out to me to do this is to split up the posts. This one will deal with the logical question. I wrote:Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations. To which you responded:Then you have to prove that killing is always wrong. Your response here does not logically follow. I explained why, which is right here Your original statement asserts: 1)To prove that wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations 2)It must be proven that killing is always wrong. Let me stop here and ask if you see this? If not, I'll try to explain it more clearly. I then continued explaining this. The contrapositive of this is the following: 1)If it is not proven that killing is wrong, then 2)Wrong acts are sanatized by right motivations. This may be more difficult to see, but it is, as I stated, elementary logic. If P implies Q, then the converse of Q implies the converse of P. This is exactly what is happening here. You then wrote, "I’m not good at phylosophy, but anyone can see that your logic is faulty." I assume by asserting "I'm not good at philosophy" you mean "I'm not good at logic." Given this is the case, how can you follow up your admission with the statement that "anyone can see that your logic is faulty." There is no flaw in the logical argument I presented. Anyone who understands logic can see it is sound. Apparently as an attempt to show my logic was faulty you wrote: quote:
Wrong acts are not sanitized by right motivations. This is ALWAYS true.
Killing is wrong. This is NOT ALWAYS true.
You can't compare what is true with what is not always true; that's what I'm trying to say. If you want to compare the two then prove that killing is always wrong.
I didn't make this comparison. You were the one who jumped from my statement that wrong acts cannot be sanatized by right motivations. This is what I wrote:
quote:
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.
It was in response to this that you cut out the very first sentence "Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations" and responded "Then you have to prove that killing is always wrong." which does not logically follow, as I demonstrated.
Basically the simple way to see your response was logically unsound is that wrong acts cannot be sanatized by right motivation regardless of whether or not killing is right. One does NOT have to prove that killing is wrong to assert that wrong actions are not sanatized by right motivations.
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15423
09/11/05 07:10 PM
09/11/05 07:10 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
R: Tom, You are carrying to an extreme the fact that sometimes God tolerates some things because His people is not yet prepared to understand the whole truth, and implying that God bends to their wishes and does things as they want. Tom:God did this time and time again with Israel. "I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts." (Isa. 65:2, 3) Throughout their entire history, they fought against God's will. Trying to figure out God's character by looking at Israel is bound to lead to confusion. Even holy angels were unable to get it right until the revelation of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:20; DA 758). It is because we have been confused that God sent His Son that we might perceive the truth regarding His character: 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}
We also have the following quote from the Spirit of Prophesy:
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)
What this means is that we do not need to go outside of Jesus Christ's life here on earth to understand God's character. Everything we need to know about God was revealed by Him. This is what the whole of the Scriptures teach us. Especially John brings this out. So clear is this truth that non-SDA's have seen it.
quote:
To know Jesus is to know the Father, and to see Jesus is to see the Father. It's that simple....
Jesus is the visible representation of the Father. Everything we need to know about God is disclosed in Him. In knowing Jesus there is nowhere else and no one else we need to look to in order to learn what God is like. (from Is God to Blame? by Greg Boyd)
R:It was God who instituted the death penalty under the old covenant and it was God who commanded His people to destroy the canaanite nations. This is told in the Bible and confirmed by Ellen White.
A parable is easily recognized as such, and there is no parable involved here. Ellen White is neither explaining a parable, nor making a parable to explain a biblical historical fact. She makes it crystal clear that the idea did not arise with the people but that it was a direct command of God.
Tom:The reason I quoted the parable had nothing to do with it's being a parable. That was irrelevant. It was to illustrate the principle that God meets us where we are. Jesus intentionally told a parable which had theological error in it, showing that God is willing to humble Himself and meet us where we are, if we will not keep step with Him.
To know that it is not God's active will that we take up swords to kill our enemies, it is only neceesary to take a look at Christ's life and words.
Old Tom:The principle that we have is that all that we need to know or can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son:
R:And as I said, there is no disharmony at all between God’s character and His taking life in mercy.
Tom:It's true you've said this, but you have not pointed to anything in Christ's life or character which would substantiate what you have said.
Old Tom:then the only way the idolaters could die would be for God to cease His protecting and sustaining work.
R:What you are saying is that God ceased to protect them from their own brethren, who wished to kill them with swords.
Tom:What do you mean "their own breathren?" God ceased protecting the Canaanenites from the destruction they were bringing upon themselves. That's true. Severl generations earlier, God did protect them, because they had not yet filled their cup of iniquity. Now that their cup was fill (they deliberately rejected God, in spite of His revelations), His protection stopped.
R:Your explanation not only pictures Moses as a monster, but also makes God contradictory.
Tom:How is Moses a monster? He was a friend of God. He spoke face to face with God. God and Moses were on the same page.
R:You say that God did not wish them to be killed by sword, but the fact is that He not only commended but rewarded those who performed this act.
Tom:You're addressing God's permissive will. I was addressing His active will.
Say you have a child of age who chooses to do something which you did not wish it to do. Your choice is to reject the child totally, or to instruct the child, even though it's not doing what you want it to do. God chose to do the latter. What's God's active will is is shown in life and character of His Son. *That's* where one should look to see what God is like:
quote:
18No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father's side. He has shown us what God is like.
Old Tom:Regarding actions, God has options available to us that we do not have, since we are not the Sustainer of the universe, and do not protect from the forces of nature and of the forces of evil.
R:Is it correct for a father to use others to expel his children from his house? What does this reveal about such a father?
Tom:Yes, this would be fine. This is dealing with motivations. We're in agreement regarding God's motivations. Where we are in disagreement is that I view that destruction comes when one stubbornly rejects God to the point that He withdraws His sustaining or protective care. You agree that God sometimes does this, but sometimes He acts like Satan. You see the difference as being what God's motivation is, versus Satan's. I see God and Satan as acting differently:
quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. (MH 113)
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15424
09/11/05 07:36 PM
09/11/05 07:36 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
By “I’m not good at philosophy”, I mean I don't like philosophy in general, which of course includes the study of logic. However, I have by nature a logical reasoning. quote:
I didn't make this comparison. You were the one who jumped from my statement that wrong acts cannot be sanatized by right motivations. This is what I wrote:
But why did you say what you said? The truth is this:
R:The difference between God and Satan is in the motivation for destruction (killing).
Tom:Wrong acts are not sanatized by right motivations.
R: Then you have to prove that killing is always wrong.
You implied that it’s not right for God to kill because killing is always wrong, independently of the motivation for doing so. To which I said, Then prove that killing is always wrong, and you will have proved your point. I think this is logical, isn't it?
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15425
09/11/05 08:13 PM
09/11/05 08:13 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
Tom:What do you mean "their own breathren?"
Are we on the same page? I was speaking of the incident of the idolaters of the golden calf – Ex. 32. Sorry, I should have been clearer. It wasn’t in this thread we discussed this, but in the thread “Was Marx Right?” There I had quoted the following text:
"In the name of 'the Lord God of Israel,' Moses now commanded those upon his right hand, who had kept themselves clear of idolatry, to gird on their swords and slay all who persisted in rebellion. 'And there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.' Without regard to position, kindred, or friendship, the ringleaders in wickedness were cut off; but all who repented and humbled themselves were spared.
“Those who performed this terrible work of judgment were acting by divine authority, executing the sentence of the King of heaven. Men are to beware how they, in their human blindness, judge and condemn their fellow men; but when God commands them to execute His sentence upon iniquity, He is to be obeyed. Those who performed this painful act, thus manifested their abhorrence of rebellion and idolatry, and consecrated themselves more fully to the service of the true God. The Lord honored their faithfulness by bestowing special distinction upon the tribe of Levi.” (PP 324)
quote:
Tom:Yes, this would be fine.
Yes, this would be fine? A father calling the next-door neighbor to expell his children from his house?
What about the last great day – who will God call to do this at that day?
|
|
|
Re: Who or What caused the Flood?
#15426
09/11/05 08:14 PM
09/11/05 08:14 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom:It appears to me that you believe that it is exactly by force and authority that God administers His government. R:A ruler establishes the rules for his kingdom and gives all his subjects time to accept or reject those rules, telling them plainly that all those who reject the rules will not be permitted to remain in the kingdom. Rebels are not only a threat to the loyal subjects but also make the kingdom an unhappy place. After the time expires, is he using force if he expels the rebels from his kingdom? Tom:Earthly rulers act as you say. However, quote:
"Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?" In earthly governments there was nothing that could serve for a similitude. No civil society could afford Him a symbol. (COL 76)
To understand God's character and the principles of His government, the place to go is not Israel, nor world goverments, but Jesus Christ. It is in His life and character that God is perfectly revealed.
Old Tom:Had He removed His protecting power from the Red Sea, the Israelites would have drowned. God was under no obligation to continue His protection once the Israelites had reached the other side for a people who had made it clear that they did not desire His protection.
R:He wouldn't have had to protect the israelites from the sea if He hadn't interfered in the sea in the first place.
Tom:God opened the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to go through. He used His power to protect them from the Egyptians that they (the Israelites) might learn to trust Him.
R:If you build a dam of course you have to protect people from the water, and you are the sole responsible for the death of people if you explode the dam.
Tom:Picture a million bullets flying around. God protects us from all of these bullets, almost all the time. Sometimes He allows a bullet to get through. That the bullets exist is not God's fault. They exist only because free moral agents have chosen to act contrary to His will.
If God never allowed a bullet to get through, there would appear to be nothing wrong with sin. No cause and effect would be seen. On the other hand, when God does allow a bullet to get through, He gets blamed.
Old Tom:It took longer than that. It took thousands of years.
R: No, forty years after God definitely removed His protection. The point is, ruin was not immediate, which is what you want to prove.
Tom:If I wanted to prove ruin was immediate, I wouldn't say that it took thousands of years rather than forty, would I?
Old Tom:The earth would be destroyed apart from the loving care which God provides.
R:Any unfallen planet would be destroyed apart from the loving care God provides.
Tom:Right!
Old Tom:You are asserting that the destruction of the Canaanites was not due to their choice?
R:Not in the same sense of the destruction of Jerusalem. God did not command the Romans to destroy Jerusalem as He commanded His people to destroy the canaanites.
Tom:He allowed both the Romans to destroy the Israelites and the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. The Canaanenites were as much God's children as the Israelites. He loved them no less. The destruction of both occured only because God's Spirit was stubbornly resisted, which led to His abandoing them, as they forced Him to do (if He would respect their freedom of chioce).
Force is not a principle of God's government. God does not destroy. Force is the last resort of all false religion. All we can know about God was revealed to us by His Son. Every truth from Genesis to Revelation, to be correctly understood, must be interprested in the light that streams from the croos. Any correct theory of the destruction of the wicked must harmonize with these principles.
Old Tom:Your view seems to hold that sin is powerless. It is not a destructive force.
R:Sin is so bad that, were it not for God, it would destroy all good and still remain.
Tom:Evil is overcome by good. It's not the other way around.
quote:
19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.(Rom. 12:19-21)
In a sense, our whole disagreement comes down to this one point. I believe that good will overcome evil, and by good, I don't mean force or destructive power, but love, mercy and truth, which are the princples of God's government.
quote:
God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.(DA 759)
God will win the Great Controversy using His principles alone, truth and love, and NOT the principles of His enemy, which is compelling force.
Old Tom:Death is of the devil.
R:The point is that by saying that God removes His sustaining care so that our heart stops beating, you are virtually saying that death is of God, not of Satan.
Tom:I do not see removing sustaining or protecting care as equivalent to killing someone. Death exists because of sin, which is Satan's invention, not God's. God has nothing to do with death. Death of is of the devil.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
