Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, or did He?
- Thread starter Roberth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
But don't you love yourself? Do you solely live for others with no thought of self? As Paul states,
"Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth." 1 Cor 10:24
Lucifer found agape love to be too restrictive. Not seeking your own wealth, but only the wealth of others he found to be at odds with his brand of love. Hence Lucifer introduced self-love.
Here's what modern psychiatry states concerning self-love: "You can't love another person until you love yourself first."
Using man as his tool, Satan has developed a kingdom (the Bible refers to it as “the kingdom of this world”) that is based entirely on the principle of self and which is in complete opposition and contradiction to the “kingdom of heaven.” Everything, therefore, that goes to make up this worldly system (kosmos) — nationalism, tribalism, politics, education, commerce, recreation, sports, social clubs, technology, etc. — is founded upon the principle of love of self, even though at times this principle may not be obvious. According to 1 John 2:16, “all that is in the world” (i.e., without exception) is based or founded upon lust (i.e., love of self).
"Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth." 1 Cor 10:24
Lucifer found agape love to be too restrictive. Not seeking your own wealth, but only the wealth of others he found to be at odds with his brand of love. Hence Lucifer introduced self-love.
Here's what modern psychiatry states concerning self-love: "You can't love another person until you love yourself first."
Using man as his tool, Satan has developed a kingdom (the Bible refers to it as “the kingdom of this world”) that is based entirely on the principle of self and which is in complete opposition and contradiction to the “kingdom of heaven.” Everything, therefore, that goes to make up this worldly system (kosmos) — nationalism, tribalism, politics, education, commerce, recreation, sports, social clubs, technology, etc. — is founded upon the principle of love of self, even though at times this principle may not be obvious. According to 1 John 2:16, “all that is in the world” (i.e., without exception) is based or founded upon lust (i.e., love of self).
Last edited:
God took a risk when He created free-will beings. God knew Lucifer would eventually rebel against His agape love and introduced self-love (a u-turn agape). Because God has allowed the entrance of sin (self-love), He has to assume the responsibility for its fallout. He assumes the responsibility because He alone allowed it to progress.
Why did He allow it? Answer: To expose it!!!
On paper self-love sounds great, but placed into practice we see the love of self actually brings lawlessness.
According to the Hebrew scholars (these are not Christian scholars, but Jewish scholars), “Azazel” is the name of the devil. The Syriac manuscript for “Azazel” has this phrase “the angel that revolted.” Very interesting and a very reliable manuscript. Most Christian scholars interpret Azazel as the Scapegoat. What does scapegoat mean? If you looked it up in a dictionary, what does it mean? We use it in our English language.
Someone has to take the blame. That is the issue! When you deal with sin in a legal sense, as a transgression of the law, there are three things involved. First there is guilt. Then there is punishment. Then there is responsibility.
The thing is this: who is responsible for sin? One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions.
If God is sovereign, then He has allowed Satan to come in. He has allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. This has created a problem and this was not solved on the cross. Let me give you an illustration. When Adam sinned and God came to visit him, what did he say to God when God asked why did you sin? He said, “This woman, whom You gave....” So upon whom was he putting the blame? On God. Today you will hear it all the time: “If God is love why is He allowing all the sicknesses and problems? If God is love, why is He allowing a drought in America?” These are the kind of questions that have to be solved if the great controversy is to come to an end.
So what does God do? God actually assumes the blame! He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I have created evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame.
Someone has to take the blame. That is the issue! When you deal with sin in a legal sense, as a transgression of the law, there are three things involved. First there is guilt. Then there is punishment. Then there is responsibility.
The thing is this: who is responsible for sin? One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions.
If God is sovereign, then He has allowed Satan to come in. He has allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. This has created a problem and this was not solved on the cross. Let me give you an illustration. When Adam sinned and God came to visit him, what did he say to God when God asked why did you sin? He said, “This woman, whom You gave....” So upon whom was he putting the blame? On God. Today you will hear it all the time: “If God is love why is He allowing all the sicknesses and problems? If God is love, why is He allowing a drought in America?” These are the kind of questions that have to be solved if the great controversy is to come to an end.
So what does God do? God actually assumes the blame! He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I have created evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame.
Last edited:
So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance, but he did not inquire of the Lord; therefore, He [God] killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David, the son of Jesse (1 Chron. 10:13, 14).
Now did God actually kill Saul?
Saul said to his armorbearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it” . . . But his armorbearer would not. . . . Therefore, Saul took a sword and fell on it. . . . So Saul . . . died (1 Chron. 10:4, 6)
Saul committed suicide. God didn't kill him.
Then why does God state He did?
Now did God actually kill Saul?
Saul said to his armorbearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it” . . . But his armorbearer would not. . . . Therefore, Saul took a sword and fell on it. . . . So Saul . . . died (1 Chron. 10:4, 6)
Saul committed suicide. God didn't kill him.
Then why does God state He did?
Because Saul wouldn't have gave up and committed suicide if God had been with him in battle. He was losing the battle because He had forsaken God and therefore in his apostasy God had abandoned Saul. Therefore God assumed the responsibility for Saul's death as if He killed Saul himself.
Think about it.....If God had never allowed Lucifer to develop sin and come to this world Saul would have never died. Therefore God assumes the responsibility for sin until the day of atonement. At that time He will prove, to the world, that ultimately it is Lucifer's love of self that is responsible for all the mayhem we see in this world.
Think about it.....If God had never allowed Lucifer to develop sin and come to this world Saul would have never died. Therefore God assumes the responsibility for sin until the day of atonement. At that time He will prove, to the world, that ultimately it is Lucifer's love of self that is responsible for all the mayhem we see in this world.
I think it is you who is without understanding. Misunderstanding God's agape love leads to atrocities in the name of God.
Here are two examples:
John 16:2 "The time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God.3 They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me"
Luke 9:51 When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; 52 and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him.53 But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. 54 When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And they went on to another village.
Now, many of you point to the verse that clearly stated that "The Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven". However using another part of the Bible I showed you how He did this by abandoning those cities. Hence when God forsook these cities His protection went with Him.
But most of you, if not all, said no, you are unbiblical. Well, the Bible also states that "(God) killed (Saul)" (1 Chron. 10:13, 14), but clearly we read that "Saul took a sword and fell on it" (1 Chron. 10:4, 6)
So I see most of you as narrow minded. You have your denominational boxes and refuse to think outside of them. Hence you really aren't following the word of God, but men's opinions (i.e., your spiritual leaders).
Why then call yourselves Protestants? for what you have done is really no different then what the Catholic has does with his Pope and that is he makes the Pope the final word in faith & morals.
But most of you, if not all, said no, you are unbiblical. Well, the Bible also states that "(God) killed (Saul)" (1 Chron. 10:13, 14), but clearly we read that "Saul took a sword and fell on it" (1 Chron. 10:4, 6)
So I see most of you as narrow minded. You have your denominational boxes and refuse to think outside of them. Hence you really aren't following the word of God, but men's opinions (i.e., your spiritual leaders).
Why then call yourselves Protestants? for what you have done is really no different then what the Catholic has does with his Pope and that is he makes the Pope the final word in faith & morals.
Last edited:
Hi Roberth,
what you are not understanding is that, the context of any given passage should be consulted first. Consequently, if it makes sense, then don't seek any other sense. That is, there are many scriptures that don't require the reader to go investigate other scriptures in order to know what is being said, which is the case here. We don't need to go look at any other scripture in order to understand what is already plainly stated, which is that the Lord rained fire and sulfur from the Lord out of heaven. That being said, there is no evidence in the context that this event took place by God removing his protective shield from them and they dying from a natural disaster as a result. What the scripture does state is that God, through the angels, was in control and responsible for the direct cause of the event of destruction itself, as well as the timing of it and proof of this is the angel telling Lot to "flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." This would demonstrate control of the event.
With this kind of interpretation, you could say that it wasn't God who caused Jonah to be swallowed by a great fish for the purpose of bringing him back to Nineveh and that for the purpose of warning the Ninevites, but that God had simply removed his protection from Jonah and therefore, when he was thrown into the water a whale happened to be passing by and swallowed him, taking the miracle away from God and assigning it to a natural occurrence, just like you are doing here.
What is it so difficult for you to believe what the scripture is directly saying and understand that it is God, with forethought, who is the One who deliberately rained down fire and sulfur upon those cities?
what you are not understanding is that, the context of any given passage should be consulted first. Consequently, if it makes sense, then don't seek any other sense. That is, there are many scriptures that don't require the reader to go investigate other scriptures in order to know what is being said, which is the case here. We don't need to go look at any other scripture in order to understand what is already plainly stated, which is that the Lord rained fire and sulfur from the Lord out of heaven. That being said, there is no evidence in the context that this event took place by God removing his protective shield from them and they dying from a natural disaster as a result. What the scripture does state is that God, through the angels, was in control and responsible for the direct cause of the event of destruction itself, as well as the timing of it and proof of this is the angel telling Lot to "flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." This would demonstrate control of the event.
With this kind of interpretation, you could say that it wasn't God who caused Jonah to be swallowed by a great fish for the purpose of bringing him back to Nineveh and that for the purpose of warning the Ninevites, but that God had simply removed his protection from Jonah and therefore, when he was thrown into the water a whale happened to be passing by and swallowed him, taking the miracle away from God and assigning it to a natural occurrence, just like you are doing here.
What is it so difficult for you to believe what the scripture is directly saying and understand that it is God, with forethought, who is the One who deliberately rained down fire and sulfur upon those cities?
Last edited:
That's how Christ died....That's how the Jews were masqueraded in 70AD. That's how Job went through a living hell, only to repent in the end. There are many other examples.
God is sovereign, right? That means nothing happens without His permission, right? When bad things happen to unbelievers it's really bad - as in lost and hell bound.
When bad things happen to believers there's eternity.....Only God knows why He delivers some believers and others He let's die. However God does nothing out of malice or hatred, for God is love.
Therefore even His wrath (i.e., His reluctant departure from those who commit apostasy) must be understood in the context of His agape love. Love cannot force and therefore God, in righteousness, cannot force unbelievers to exercise faith & repentance.
God is sovereign, right? That means nothing happens without His permission, right? When bad things happen to unbelievers it's really bad - as in lost and hell bound.
When bad things happen to believers there's eternity.....Only God knows why He delivers some believers and others He let's die. However God does nothing out of malice or hatred, for God is love.
Therefore even His wrath (i.e., His reluctant departure from those who commit apostasy) must be understood in the context of His agape love. Love cannot force and therefore God, in righteousness, cannot force unbelievers to exercise faith & repentance.
In Isaiah 53, universally accepted within Christendom as a Messianic prophecy, Scripture says, "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted" (v. 4).
Does God consider the removal of Himself from humans as an act of aggression against them? Christ, the corporate human, died when God withdrewfrom Him and released Him to destruction. Yet God insists He "struck" His Son. Is this how God strikes? by withdrawing and releasing humans to the destructive forces around them? Would this model fit other situations? If not, why not?
Does God consider the removal of Himself from humans as an act of aggression against them? Christ, the corporate human, died when God withdrewfrom Him and released Him to destruction. Yet God insists He "struck" His Son. Is this how God strikes? by withdrawing and releasing humans to the destructive forces around them? Would this model fit other situations? If not, why not?
And therefore, you don't need to look at other scriptures, which is the point which I have been trying to get across. If all of the information is contained showing that the Lord rained fire and sulfur from the Lord out of heaven. And the context shows that the angel was holding back the destruction until Lot was safe in Zoar, then we don't need to go looking for any underlying interpretation other than what is given.
If scripture says, "The sky is blue, thus sayeth the Lord," then we don't need to go to other scriptures in order to find out what the color blue is or what is meant by the sky. Don't get me wrong! It is good to cross-reference scripture in order to get a clear understanding. But here in this case, everything is contained in the context and there is no need to look at other scriptures to understand the meaning of God raining fire and sulfur down and why he was doing it. Since there is no mention of God using a natural disaster nor the mention of him abandoning or removing his protection from them, then we should not interject it into the scripture. Here is an example taken from those who are Amillennialists:
"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."
The Amil, instead of believing what the plain text of the scripture says above, they ignore it and they will site Ps.50:10 and will take the formula there and apply it to the scripture above regarding the thousand years, as follows:
"for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills."
Therefore, since the number of cattle on a thousand hills is an unknown number, they apply the same interpretation to Rev.20:1-7, that is that the thousand years is an unknown number, all the while ignoring the contextual facts that one, there is nothing in the scripture that would lend to the thousand years as not being literal and two, the fact that "a thousand years" is used consistently, being mentioned six times. Here they are doing the same thing that you are doing, which is to ignore the context and interject information that is just not there. Instead of believing the scripture which states that Satan is bound for thousand years, they reject the literal thousand and spiritualize it.
I'm not against you, nor am I just being argumentative, but I am just trying to get you to understand that if the literal sense makes good sense, then don't seek any other sense. That being said, surely God is Almighty and is able to perform the destruction just as the scripture states and that by his will, his power and in his timing and that without the need of natural disasters.
If scripture says, "The sky is blue, thus sayeth the Lord," then we don't need to go to other scriptures in order to find out what the color blue is or what is meant by the sky. Don't get me wrong! It is good to cross-reference scripture in order to get a clear understanding. But here in this case, everything is contained in the context and there is no need to look at other scriptures to understand the meaning of God raining fire and sulfur down and why he was doing it. Since there is no mention of God using a natural disaster nor the mention of him abandoning or removing his protection from them, then we should not interject it into the scripture. Here is an example taken from those who are Amillennialists:
"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."
The Amil, instead of believing what the plain text of the scripture says above, they ignore it and they will site Ps.50:10 and will take the formula there and apply it to the scripture above regarding the thousand years, as follows:
"for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills."
Therefore, since the number of cattle on a thousand hills is an unknown number, they apply the same interpretation to Rev.20:1-7, that is that the thousand years is an unknown number, all the while ignoring the contextual facts that one, there is nothing in the scripture that would lend to the thousand years as not being literal and two, the fact that "a thousand years" is used consistently, being mentioned six times. Here they are doing the same thing that you are doing, which is to ignore the context and interject information that is just not there. Instead of believing the scripture which states that Satan is bound for thousand years, they reject the literal thousand and spiritualize it.
I'm not against you, nor am I just being argumentative, but I am just trying to get you to understand that if the literal sense makes good sense, then don't seek any other sense. That being said, surely God is Almighty and is able to perform the destruction just as the scripture states and that by his will, his power and in his timing and that without the need of natural disasters.