GC:The end does not justify the means.
T:What's the difference between saying the end justifies the means, and what you said before, that when God kills or lies or whatever, He does so for the right reason?
GC:There's a world of difference here. When God kills, He does so for completely different motives, purposes, and results. If I kill, perhaps it would be for selfish, sinful reasons.
This sounds like the ends justifies the means. Sounds exactly like that.
Not so with God, for He does so in holiness to cleanse the earth of the vile and to protect His people. In other words, the act is not really the same.
So you're saying that if God does something, and someone else does the same thing, they're not really doing the same thing. An changes depending upon who does it.
Jacob lied to get the birthright. God had promised him the birthright. It was supposed to be his. But lying to get it was wrong. Even if Esau had gotten the birthright, instead of Jacob who should have had it, Jacob should have been content. But he stepped out in selfishness to obtain that which might have been obtained in righteousness. The end was the same. The means were not the same. The end did not justify the means.
I agree that the end does not justify the means. Lying is bad, regardless of whether Jacob does it or God does it.
What I'm saying is that God's means are not our means.
I agree with this too. God's means are revealed by His law. Also by the life and character of His Son.
"Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles (or "means") are not of this order."
This is an example of how God's means are different than ours. God doesn't use compelling power.
Here's another one: "The exercise of force is contrary to the principles (or "means") of God's government."
God's wisdom in dealing with sin is so far above our thoughts as to be incomprehensible to us. We look at God's acts, with our human wisdom, and are led by Satan to view them as wrong. But our view of them does not make them wrong.
Or we're led by Satan to view God's character as like ours, and using the same means we would use.
Just because you see God as doing wrong if He kills, does not mean that God will cease doing that which He deems best in dealing with sin, nor does it make it wrong for God to kill.
Just because you see killing as OK, does not mean that it is. It could be that killing is contrary to God's law, as is the use of compelling power, which may be why we're told that it is only found under Satan's government.
T:Some versions translate this: "Sin pays its wages: death."
However one translates this, where do you get the idea that this is saying the law requires the death of the sinner? It doesn't say anything like this.
GC:I get the idea that this text is law. Perhaps you don't recognize God's law when you see it. This law says that sin's wages are death.
So you're saying when the Bible says something, that's the same thing as the law says it? So when James says, "And sin, when it is finished brings forth death" this could be described as the law saying, "And sin, when it is finished, brings forth death"? And similarly for anything else that Scripture says?
Fallen man, because of his guilt, could no longer come directly before God with his supplications; for his transgression of the divine law had placed an impassable barrier between the holy God and the transgressor. But a plan was devised that the sentence of death should rest upon a Substitute. {Con 21.3}
If the law did not require death for sinners, where did this sentence of death come from?
How about from this...
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17
When God spoke those words, were they not law? Do you recognize this as a commandment from God? It was this very commandment which brought sin into this world. It is this same commandment which brought death into the world as its penalty.
I was talking about Romans 6:23. You said that is says that the law requires the death of sinners. I pointed out that it doesn't say that. If you wish to rebut this, you have to adduce something that is speaking of Romans 6:23.
It was this very commandment which brought sin into this world.
You're saying that God brought sin into this world? Before responding to this, I'd like to verify that this is really what you meant.
T:Or, from the SOP, that death "is the inevitable result of sin."
GC:Inevitable because of what? Inevitable because of God's law, given to Adam and Eve. Inevitable means unavoidable. Can you avoid God's sentence of death for disobedience?
It's inevitable because of what sin is by its nature. It is anti-God and anti-agape, which is anti-life.
The following explains this:
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)
T:Even if there were no law, it would still be true that death is the inevitable result of sin. Sin is founded upon the principle of self first, which is a principle not capable of supporting life.
GC:These two statements of yours are proven false within the first three chapters of Genesis. If sin brought death by itself, without God's law, then God would never have needed to bar the way to the Tree of Life which would have given immortal life to sinners.
Here's my second statement:
"Sin is founded upon the principle of self first, which is a principle not capable of supporting life."
You're really claiming this is false? If the statement is false, then the following is true:
"Sin is founded upon the principle of self first, which is a principle capable of supporting life."
You really wish to assert this is true?
T:It can only lead to misery and death, irrespective of the law. The purpose of the law is to make known to us our condition so we will seek a remedy.
GC:Your view of God's law is dangerous. If this is the only purpose of God's law, then I suppose without sin there would be no need of it?
I didn't say this was it's only purpose. I don't understand why you do this. I said "the purpose," within a specific context, which was the context of our discussion. Don't abstract this into something I have no intention of saying, and which has nothing to do with the point being made.
If such is the case, can you tell me why the law existed in Heaven before sin began? If God's law was unnecessary back then (since no "remedy" was needed for a sin condition), then Satan was correct in saying God's law was unjust.
Same comment. I didn't say this was the law's only purpose. I said the purpose of the law was to make clear our condition. Do you disagree?
T:It doesn't create our condition, or change it, but points it out. Seeing our condition, we are led to Christ, who can provide the remedy we need, transforming us from living according to the "me first" principle, which leads to misery and death, to living to the "agape" principle, which leads to happiness and life.
GC:I agree with some of this, namely that seeing our condition we are led to Christ.
Ok, then you should have agree with what I just said before this.
However, I will point out that simply by living the agape principle, you will be unable to achieve immortal life. Many saints have come under the spell of death. There is more to it than this. If living the agape principle got you eternal life, then we have found a way to save ourselves by our works, haven't we?
If we could get agape of ourselves, we could. Do you think that's possible?
T:When God steals, He does it for the right reasons. etc.
GC:Yes again. But when God steals ...
Tom, you have overly shortened my statement to the point it becomes a misquote. If you read the original statement, you would see that I am saying God does not steal. There is a difference between stealing and taking. We may use the word "steal" but it does not mean it makes it so. To be the more clear, one can only steal when one does not own the object which he or she takes. Is there anything in this universe that God does not own?
If your point is that God does not steal, then you should have answered my question "no" not "yes." That is, I generalized your statement of God's killing for the right reason to God's stealing for the right reason, and you said "yes, again" and went on about how when God steals, He does so for the right reason, etc. If your point is that God does not steal, then you're in agreement with me on this point.
T:??? Of course Jesus didn't do everything that God possibly can do. I never said this.
GC:True, you never worded it exactly that way.
Of course I never worded it that way. This is a ridiculous idea.
However, you have limited God's potential range of actions by what you have seen in Christ's life, based on that one statement in Mrs. White which is not taken in balance with other statements she makes. In other words, Mrs. White does not say what you hang your beliefs upon. (But we have had this discussion before.)
It's not just one statement. For example, there's the entire article of Signs of the Times 1/20/90 which deals with this subject. For example, in that article she writes that the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, in order that men might be set right with Him.
Regarding other statements she makes, I'm not aware of any which contradict the idea she expressed in 8T 286. She's not the only one who's expressed this idea, either. Others have seen it from Scripture.
You have made the argument that all we can possibly know of God was revealed through the life of Jesus during His earthly ministry. By so saying, you have excluded the Old Testament where it does not overlap Christ's ministry. You would have us believe that God's character was not represented in those situations which differ from what Christ represented while on earth. However, again, your crutch for this belief is an out-of-context quote.
No, this isn't the idea. The idea is that given that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, if we have the idea that the OT is revealing something different in relation to God than what Christ revealed, we have it wrong.
T:The SOP statement quoted above says that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. What man can know of God is obviously dealing with God's character, not His physical capabilities.
GC:That works fine, perhaps, in this situation, but you do not believe the same to be true regarding the plagues of Egypt just a few chapters before the water from the rock. Did those plagues represent God's physical capabilities only? or does the story teach us something about God's character too?
If we have the idea that the plagues have God acting differently than what Christ revealed of God, then we're not understanding them correctly. This is my point. We should start with Christ, build a foundation upon Christ, and then go from there. This is as opposed to constructing a "Christ plus something else" foundation.
T:By your own words, you believe it is right to set people on fire, provided you do so because it's a command of God. You believe God makes these commands, and you believe it's right to do these things when God commands. I find this frightening. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
GC:It's sure a good thing God did not give you the special mission which He chose to give Abraham--that of sacrificing his own son. I suppose you would have found that "frightening." If you do not believe that God commanded Abraham to kill his son, why did Abraham believe it was God telling him this? And why does Mrs. White also believe that God was the one issuing the orders?
I'm not understanding your train of thought. My point is that you believe that it's OK to set people on fire if you do so because God has so commanded. I'm saying this is frightening. Lots of people think God commands them to do things like butcher people and set them on fire. I don't see what this has to do with Abraham.
k:The point was that David would have been considered by you to be unsafe and unworthy of elevation to power. You have said that by my statement respecting God's commands, even if they are to kill, I would be a dangerous leader. Kland took it a step further and likened me to Hitler! But by so saying, both of you would accuse David in the same breath.
Lots of things happened in the OT which were not in accordance with God's ideal will. We see God's ideal revealed in Christ. This is why I've suggested we should build a foundation based on Christ.
Regarding you're being like Hitler, he's not saying you personally are like him, but that you're espousing principles such as Hitler did.
EGW:Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work.
T:Whose work? God's? Was this something God "ordained"? No, it was Satan's work, and Satan worked to conceal his own work, and make it appear as if it were God's work.
GC:I'm sorry you believe the Bible is doing Satan's work.
T:Would you please explain your reasoning here? I quoted from the SOP, and bring out some points regarding that quote, and you conclude from this that I believe the Bible is doing Satan's work? What's your thinking here?
GC:Perhaps you didn't realize what you were saying. You were putting two concepts together which should not be together. First, that God's Word sometimes speaks of God doing that which He allowed (Satan to do), and second, that by attributing these acts to God, Satan conceals his own work. When you put those two things together, Tom, you have a Bible that is doing some work for Satan!
I don't see that you're making sense here. The GC quote says that Satan seeks to conceal his own work by blaming God for doing that which he (Satan) has done. It is also the case that Scripture often presents God as doing that which He permits. These are two true statements. Do you disagree? Apparently not, since you reiterated them. So what's the problem you see here?
What she is saying is that people (not the Bible) often are tempted to misrepresent God by attributing to Him the works of Satan--which is the way Satan conceals his own work. Mrs. White is NOT speaking of the Bible doing this, and does not deserve to be quoted in the same breath as speaking of the Bible's representation of God.
I said Satan did something. I said Satan conceals his work by misrepresenting what he has done as something God did. Actually, Ellen White said this, and I repeated it.
Tom, you did not make the statement, but you applied it. However, you misapplied it, for Mrs. White is not speaking of the Biblical representations here. When she says "are often represented" she is non-specifically referring to people. An example of this would be when people look at someone who just got cancer and say "Well, God must be punishing him for what he did."
Of course it's people. That's my point. Satan deceives people by causing them to think that God is responsible for doing things that he (Satan) has done. I'm saying I don't see any recognition of this principle in your posts.
That is, Satan is specifically trying to deceive people into thinking that God has used force and destroyed people when he (Satan) was doing this. He does so in an attempt to misrepresent His character.
Hopefully it is more clear now, given my answers above. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my prior post.
Your point still isn't clear to me. I said, or rather Ellen White said, that Satan's work is often presented as something God did, and this is a means by which Satan conceals his work.
T:I'll repeat my point, which you didn't address.
According to the SOP, GC 35, Satan seeks to conceal his own work by misrepresenting it as something which God has done. I'm saying that I've seen no evidence in what you've posted that you make any allowance for this activity of the enemy.
GC:You are, however, asking me to make this allowance given certain Bible passages. I will not comment further on this point, considering I have answered this above.
I'm saying I've *never* seen you make allowance for this, or even demonstrate any awareness that Satan is attempting to do this. Given that we are told specifically that Satan is attempting to misrepresent God's character in a specific way, we should at least allow for the possibility that he may be having some success in what he's trying to do.