Does God sometimes cause pain?

Let's continue this topic here. I'll start the thread with my list of examples from post #116141:


Let's look at some familiar examples (I won't post the corresponding Scripture since they are easy to find):


God would punish, even drown, transgressors "for the good of His subjects and for their safety." Would punishment and drowning involve pain, maybe excruciating pain? Death? Possibly.

Does God effect the good and safety of His subjects through punishment and drowning of sinners? It looks like it.

Would Satan do the punishing and drowning himself, since it benefits God's children? I doubt it.

Does God do things that He does not allow us to do? Yes.


The Levites did this at the command of God through Moses. That's the plain reading of the text.

Did God merely remove His protection, and let the bloodthirsty Levites kill their friends and relatives, in contrast to His desire? If so, I don't think they would have been considered faithful and worthy of blessing.

Did Satan instigate this "painful" event, which was needed to avoid "irretrievable ruin"? Was Satan to be credited for the severity by which "the evil [was] put away"? I don't think so.


Was Elijah itching to kill people, just waiting for God's permission? I doubt it.

Did Satan drive Elijah to do this? No. Rather, he was "directed by the Lord" to kill Baal's prophets. And the purpose was to protect repentant Israel, and to open the way for a mighty spiritual reformation.


What we have here is a little different in character than our previous examples. This time it is clear that God merely withheld His blessings.

There was no dew or rain for over 3 years. Did that result in suffering or death? It surely did. So terrible were the results that it was considered a "curse of God."

You can't blame Satan for this, since he doesn't send rain in the first place. Can't blame nature for this, since God decides what nature does. Can't blame sinful man for this, since he has no power to control weather.

This is an obvious case of God speaking through judgments. This was the "fiat of Heaven." This was God's doing.

And what exactly was God up to in all this? "The people recognize God's justice and mercy in withholding the dew and the rain until they have been brought to confess His name." After the people's eyes were opened and they had a clearer view of God's character, they recognized the withholding of dew and rain as "justice and mercy." Justice is easy to see, but why mercy? Because through this painful experience, they were saved from the more painful experience of spiritual death. Through this, they were led to confess God's name.

Would Satan have caused this himself? I doubt it. He ain't no fool.


This one seems the clearest of all. The SAME ANGEL who smote Peter also smote Herod. That is clear beyond contention.

Is this angel a holy angel? Is this angel one who ministers to the needs of men, or ministers their destruction? Is this angel a messenger of God or of Satan?

I would say that this angel - the angel of the Most High - is one of the good guys. I don't think he wanted to wreak havoc among men, just waiting for God to allow him. I believe he acted upon God's command. And we find that he who rescued Peter from death also caused "great agony of mind and body" to Herod.

Pain and death? Yes. Done by God's messenger? Yes. According to His will? Yes. And this "became the means of leading many to a belief in Christ."

God sometimes causes pain if it is eternally beneficial.

you know, my brother, i believe that God has had to take action from time to time, but some of your post, i believe, has gone over the top.

how does the unutterable love God has towards us show through this? it sounds more like a justification of the actions of hitlers henchmen, the ones who did surgical experimentations on the jews without anesthesia.

again i state, i also believe God has had to take action various times in the history of this world, but i am so thankful i never had the need to justify my understanding in such a manner as above.

Gods actions can be shown in a gentle, loving manner for those of us who believe such. this is not to say i will not continue studying to see if toms understanding has merit or not. but i pray that should i decide against his view i never see the need to justify my understanding at the expense of Gods glory.

Teresaq, no one is doubting that the wrath of God is love. Just because Arnold did not include the balance between mercy and justice in his study above, it does not mean he is opposed to the mercy of God. How would you reflect the truths Arnold shared above without leaving the impression you are ignoring the mercy of God? As you know Tom is quick to explain all the stories above in light of the "withdraw and permit" principle. Both he and Arnold are in agreement that God is merciful and loving. Since it is not a disputed point, Arnold isn't addressing it. He is focusing on what they disagree on.

Here's a statement which shows both sides of God's character, as He relates to the two classes of His subjects: the obedient, and the erring.


Certainly, God can and does bless. He also can and does curse. Our choices can make a world of difference in which side we are on.



God's law contains both blessings and cursings. Let us not forget that God's law represents His character. I'm thankful that God hates sin enough to bring those who persist in it to justice and to eradicate it. God is fair. God is good.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Did I say something incorrect? If so, please point it out so I can correct it immediately.


The Word of God is symbolized by the Sword of the Spirit. Those who are limited to teaching by the feather of the Spirit, hoping to tickle everyone death, will eventually find that God was wise in likening His truth to a sword. If we are serious about dying to sin, self, and Satan, we better be ready for the sword that cuts deep.

But "at the expense of Gods glory"? Surely you must be joking. In every case, God put a stop to the spread of evil and even effected the spiritual revival of His poor deluded creatures. Turning sinners into saints is the highlight of God's glory. If you missed it, you are focusing on the wrong thing.

Anyway, Tom's understanding certainly has merit, and much truth to it. The error is in thinking that his paradigm is ALL there is to it.

Sometimes the natural consequences of sin constitute the best remedy for it. But sometimes, other measures must be taken to prevent sin's natural consequences. If my son had a habit of running into the street after his toy, I would warn him against it. But if he kept doing it, you can be sure that my next step is not to just let him reap the consequences of his choice. Before that happens, I will make him feel the pain of disobedience, and it will be significant pain. But it won't be quite the same pain as getting crushed by a speeding car.

To make sure you don't miss the point: I cause my son significant pain so that he can learn to avoid that which would cause infinitely more pain. That's because I love him. The father chastens the son he loves.

Now, what if instead of punishing him so he can learn to stop running into the street, I just let him run out and deal with whatever consequences that may entail? Sure, I tell him to stop it, but he keeps doing it anyway. And since I "love" him so much, I just let him keep running into the street. Eventually, he meets metal at 30 mph. Gentle? Loving? Glory?

we are back to perspectives. how one sees a particular point.

i did a search of ellen whites writings thinking she had some guidelines on spanking. no such word in her writings that i could find. but i did find this: this has to do with a teacher, but i get that the principle is the same no matter who it is.

discipline does not mean punish.

it is much more work and much more painful to learn other methods that work far better and are far more long-lasting. i know.

I appreciate the kind comments. Regarding the "all there is to it," that does seem to be the question. MM mentioned 5 ways that the wrath of God is manifested:



I note that all of these, but the first one, have in common that God withdraws His protection. We appear to differ in that I believe this is sufficient to cause any pain that God would deem necessary for disciplinary purposes. I don't think we necessarily see the necessity or the reason behind why the event take place differently, but we see the mechanism to be different, in the times that you think 1. applies.

Another area of difference involves the following:



You appear to believe the author intended this to be applied in a limited sense, whereas I believe the principle being articulated here is universal. That is, I believe it's really the case that Jesus Christ has revealed all that we can know of God.

I studied this about a dozen years ago, when I was planning to get married. It should be required reading for all who deal with children:

You will find in these quotes that punishment is necessary, but there is a proper way to do it.

I will comment more later.

i didnt think to look for "whipping".

but why do you equate punishment with spanking? i mean who said discipline was not necessary?

but as i said i can testify to what she states above. the more time we spend in prayer and searching for other methods than "whipping" we will find them and they will be more effective.

as i continued praying and searching i learned how to get loving obedience, without spanking, from my grandchildren.

this is why i learned to seek other methods and not spank.

Teresa is claiming that "Gods actions can be shown in a gentle, loving manner for those of us who believe such." It appears that Arnold is challenging this assertion by pointing out the Word of God is likened to a sword, as opposed to a feather, meaning that God's actions cannot always be seen as gentle and loving.

I don't see how this makes any sense. Doesn't the "sword of the Spirit" refer to the action of the Word in revealing truth? Isn't is the truth that causes the "damage"? That the truth causes us pain doesn't imply that God must have acted in a non-gentle, non-loving manner, does it?

i want to stress that i know you are a good and loving dad and that you are very kind.


i know that for a fact as i have been witness to it and not just once.

i think a much better example than starving ones child in order to punish them would be something like this:

there is a street somewhere where every single resident is some kind of criminal.

one house has a serial killer who goes out on a regular basis to hunt his victims.
another house has a rapist.
another a thief and one that doesnt just steal but hurts his victims also.
another house is a pedaphile, and on and on.

everything possible has been done to redeem these people but they would not respond. finally it is decided that all the violence has to be stopped.

either a firebomb is shot at that street that burns it utterly to the ground leaving nothing....

or there was an undetected gas leak that God ceased restraining the natural consequences of and it exploded, also leaving nothing

that anyone could gain from their deaths.

now that, for me, would be a likely example of sodom and gomorrah.

I don't. Why do you think that I equate the two? I didn't say that.

You are assuming again. Please, do to others as you would have them do to you.


Nobody. But I seem to recall somebody saying, or at least implying, that punishment is not necessary.

Here are some snippets from my quotes:


Punishment is not necessarily bad. Whipping and the rod might be necessary at times. Especially note the 2nd quote where we find that we should avoid the rod when possible, but it might still prove to be necessary.

I have come across some people who teach that the rod is never necessary. They do not have the benefit of the SOP.

Dear sir, I wish to take this opportunity, if it is pleasing in your sight, to lay before you the fact that you are of your father the Devil. And if you don't mind, please get behind me, Satan, for you are not mindful of the things of God.

Is that gentle?

God is always loving. But gentle doesn't always do the trick.

Now you've piqued my interest. I hope you are accurate in your assessment, but how did you witness this?


Allowing a firebomb to destroy everything or allowing a natural gas explosion to destroy everything, are equivalent to me. Either option requires the same moral decision from the decision maker.

This is from GC 35:



I've quoted this a number of times, trying to accentuate the point that the Jews caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them. This point cannot be overemphasized! It's key to understanding the role of God here.

It's not that God just decides He's going to punish, and so He decides to withdraw His protection, but *they* caused His protection to be withdrawn.

You're not addressing the issue I raised, but talking about something else. Also, the "I don't think this makes sense" was the start of a paragraph:



You didn't deal with the points I made, but instead chose to talk about something else. I'm not sure why.

Also you cut off what I wrote at a strange place. When I wrote "I don't see how this makes any sense," I was starting a new paragraph, which explained what I didn't think made sense and why.

I assume this is the principle you are talking about:
This is in reference to Jerusalem being razed by the Romans. Because of Israel's rejection of God, they were left to experience "Satan's vindictive power."

You are applying this principle to the examples I mentioned. Let's go into more detail. Let's look at the ones involving Moses, and see if Satan caused these deaths.

a) God ordering the stoning of the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath.
b) God ordering the killing of the unrepentant calf worshipers, and blessing the Levites for doing it.

Let's start with the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath. Here's inspired commentary on that:
First, note that the stoning was "punishment" for showing "contempt for the authority of God."

Who commanded the congregation to "stone him with stones"? The Bible and SOP say that God said it through Moses. So, one option is that God commanded them to stone the guy.

Another option is that this is one of those cases where God is credited for doing something that He allowed Satan to do. If so, then it was Satan who said, "All the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp." That would mean that Moses could not tell between Satan's voice and God's - Satan gave the command, but Moses thought it was God. Plus, Satan would be showing to the people that showing contempt for God's authority led to undesirable consequences.

Another option is that Moses wanted to kill this guy, and just told everybody that God told him to do it. That puts Moses in a rather bad light.

Another option is that God just "let nature take its course" and the stoning just happened by natural causes. But that seems strange, as the people actually took the guy outside the camp, picked up stones, and threw them at him. This was not some fortuitous lightning strike that just so happened to be there at the right place at the right time. This was the congregation acting in concert.

So here are the options I could think of:
1) God commanded it.
2) Satan commanded it.
3) Moses commanded it.
4) It just happened.

GC 35-36 notwithstanding, I find option #2 unbelievable. That would mean that Moses, the one who talked to God face-to-face, couldn't tell His voice from the voice of His archenemy. Plus it has Satan defending God's authority - not likely.

#3 makes Moses a bloodthirsty liar.

#4 is too off-the-wall to even consider as a real possibility.

#1 is what I'm going with. Both the Bible and SOP plainly say that God gave the command. And it was done to uphold God's authority. And we avoid having to throw out the first 5 books of the Bible.

Now let's turn our attention to the calf-worshipers:
We have the same basic options:
1) God commanded it.
2) Satan commanded it.
3) Moses commanded it.
4) It just happened.

Again, I'll go with #1. The Levites, who killed the unrepentant, "were acting by divine authority." That's God. They were "executing the sentence of the King of heaven." Again, that's God. "King of heaven" and "divine authority" cannot be attributed to anyone else but God.

What about #2, if indeed GC 35-36 applies here. This lawlessness, "if not speedily crushed, would run riot in wickedness, and would involve the nation in irretrievable ruin." If #2 is correct, then it is Satan who gets credit for ending the apostasy, and saving the nation from irretrievable ruin. Satan would be their deliverer. That just doesn't match Satan's character or his goals.

#3 is a possibility, since Moses was pretty upset with the whole thing. However, inspiration tells us this was the sentence of the King of heaven. That's not Moses.

#4 is off-the-wall again, as this required the participation of a large group of people. It didn't just happen accidentally.

Here's another aspect that points in favor of #1: "The Lord honored their faithfulness by bestowing special distinction upon the tribe of Levi." The Levites were blessed for doing this. Certainly, God would not bless them for doing Satan's will, or for being Satan instruments. In short, the Levites were faithful to God, not to Satan.

Here's the GC quote again:
I don't see how it applies to these two examples. Rather than Satan, I see God as being responsible for these.

I just made a post to address GC 35.


It's not universally applicable, as my post indicates.

And I don't think we have the power to force God to do something against His will. He is still sovereign.

"God's actions cannot always be seen as gentle and loving." I pointed out that it is always loving, but not always gentle.

You hypocrite.

Gentle? No. Loving? Yes.

Don't you agree, you son of the Devil?

Jesus is the truth. Yes, the truth causes pain when it must cut away error. Hence, my affirmation that God sometimes causes pain.

I don't know why you accuse me of teaching that God is non-loving at any time. You really thought I said God was not loving? Please, no straw men. If you want me to break it down like we do in logic class, I'll do that, but I think you are capable of doing that yourself.

My wife is having major surgery on Monday and recovery will take a couple of months. So I will be very scarce for a while. But I want to continue exploring this, so I may pop in now and then.

our prayers and thoughts are with her.

Regarding #116691, this is a different subject. I spent quite a time talking with MM on this subject. I posted a story about the father of a hunter which deals with these issues. I don't know if you saw that or not.

As I pointed out to MM, I think there are four issues of increasing difficulty to understand:

1.The atonement.
2.The judgment of the wicked.
3.The violent acts which God performed in the OT.
4.The violent acts which God commanded others to perform in the OT.

It seems to me impossible that if one has the wrong ideas about 1 that this won't permeate the others. This would agree with Ellen White's statement:



I think she's right, and one of the deficiencies I've seen in our studies have been posts with no apparent thought in regards to how the principles of the cross fit in; at least, I haven't been able to detect any connection.



So if God tells us to cause someone excruciating pain, then it's OK. I think we're back to the inquisition question I asked a couple of weeks ago. There was nothing wrong with what the people in the inquisition did (i.e., their actions considered alone); their only error was in thinking they were doing God's will. This is what I was trying to get at in this post. This is what I thought you thought.

If you disagree with my conclusion here, you can point that out, but it certainly seems to me to follow logically that if it's OK to cause people pain if God tells you to do so, then what I just said above follows.

Ok. Best wishes for your wife.

This is not a subject I was discussing. I was discussing causing excruciating pain in the form which the plagues describes.



I think quoting what I actually said would be helpful, which I'll do shortly.



Yes, no straw men! Agreed! I said nothing about your not thinking that God is not loving, as can be readily seen by reading what I wrote.

Teresa said, "God's actions can be shown in a gentle, loving manner for those of us who believe such."

You responded:



I responded to this by writing:



Since you wrote, "The Word of God is symbolized by the Sword of the Spirit. Those who are limited to teaching by the feather of the Spirit, hoping to tickle everyone death" etc., I can only assume that your sarcastic, deriding remarks were directed against what Teresa wrote, since you quoted what she wrote, and then posted your comment immediately following that.



I think a better choice would be to read things more carefully. I at no point said anything about your thinking God is not loving. What happened is Teresa said something, and your responded to that, and I responded to your comments, pointing out that I disagreed with your comments regarding what Teresa wrote and why. Teresa said that, "Gods actions can be shown in a gentle, loving manner for those of us who believe such." and you appeared to be taking issue with that. I took issue with your criticism of her comments.

Thanks.

I'm talking about greater pain than that. Worse than the physical pain of the plagues, God's truth causes the pain of cutting away sin, pain unto death.

I wasn't talking about this in the thread that spawned this one, but about inflicting pain and death in the form of plagues.

In regards to your point above, however, from my perspective, it is sin that is responsible for the pain that the wicked will feel, not the truth. Here's an analogy. If one smokes, one can damage oneself to the point to where breathing even pure air could be painful. I wouldn't blame pure air for causing pain, but smoking.



This says that Satan, and his followers, place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. I think this is the right way of looking at it. It's like saying, "Those who smoke damage themselves so much that merely breathing pure air is to them a consuming fire."

So the pain they feel is not result of something God does to them, but the result of what they have done to themselves. This looks to me to be the point of DA 764.

Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you view #3 above in terms of holy angels withdrawing their protection and allowing nature or evil angels or evil men to cause death and destruction (as opposed to holy angels causing it themselves)?


She qualifies herself by coupling "can know" with "needs to know". It is very obvious that Jesus never resorted to the "withdraw and permit" principle of commanding or permitting death and destruction while He was here in the flesh. Yes, He spoke about doing it in the future, but He didn't demonstrate it while here in the flesh.

ive missed the point here every time it has been brought up over so many pages.

im also missing how the "needs to know" qualifies the "can know".

Yes, I view it this way.



It's the other way around. She expanded "needs to know" to "or can know." If she meant to "qualify" what she wrote, she wouldn't have said "or can know." A little bit of thought should be sufficient to understand this. I'll give you some examples to illustrate the point.

1.All that man needs to know, or can know, of dental hygiene, was taught by Dr. Seuss.

What this means is there is nothing man can know of dental hygiene that Dr. Seuss did not teach.

2.All that man needs to know, or can know, of three-toed sloths, in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

This means there's nothing man can know of three-toed sloths which is not in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

MM, I don't understand how this could possibly not be clear. I can understand your disagreeing with what she said, but not your not understanding it. "All that man needs to know, or can know" is not qualified. You studied Venn diagrams in school, didn't you?

Here's another example:

1.Every state that has a city over 1,000,000 people, or any people at all, has taxes.

What this means is that every state has taxes. The first part of the statement was qualified, but the second part amplified it, so it became an unqualified statement. "Or can know" encompasses anything a person can know.



The SOP statement is that all that man needs to know of God, or can know of Him, was revealed by Christ. That's a clear statement.

Jesus said the same thing when He said:



This is the theme of John in general:



Actually, I think it's the theme of Scripture, but John was the most explicit in stating it.

how is your wife doing, my brother?

Tom, "needs to know" implies there is much more to know about God; and "can know" refers to our limited ability to grasp all there is to know about God.

Do you think she meant Jesus revealed, while here in the flesh, everything there is to know about God, that there isn't anything about God Jesus didn't reveal, that throughout eternity we will never discover something new about God that Jesus didn't reveal? Here's how these questions are answered in the Bible and the SOP:

John
16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Isaiah
55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Romans
11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

The word of God, like the character of its divine Author, presents mysteries that can never be fully comprehended by finite beings. The entrance of sin into the world, the incarnation of Christ, regeneration, the resurrection, and many other subjects presented in the Bible, are mysteries too deep for the human mind to explain, or even fully to comprehend. But we have no reason to doubt God's word because we cannot understand the mysteries of His providence. In the natural world we are constantly surrounded with mysteries that we cannot fathom. The very humblest forms of life present a problem that the wisest of philosophers is powerless to explain. Everywhere are wonders beyond our ken. Should we then be surprised to find that in the spiritual world also there are mysteries that we cannot fathom? The difficulty lies solely in the weakness and narrowness of the human mind. God has given us in the Scriptures sufficient evidence of their divine character, and we are not to doubt His word because we cannot understand all the mysteries of His providence. {SC 106.2}

If it were possible for created beings to attain to a full understanding of God and His works, then, having reached this point, there would be for them no further discovery of truth, no growth in knowledge, no further development of mind or heart. God would no longer be supreme; and men, having reached the limit of knowledge and attainment, would cease to advance. Let us thank God that it is not so. God is infinite; in Him are "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Col. 2:3. And to all eternity men may be ever searching, ever learning, and yet they can never exhaust the treasures of His wisdom, His goodness, and His power. {FLB 14.3}

We can never by searching find out God. He does not lay open His plans to prying, inquisitive minds. We must not attempt to lift with presumptuous hand the curtain behind which He veils His majesty. The apostle exclaims, "How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" It is a proof of His mercy that there is the hiding of His power, that He is enshrouded in the awful clouds of mystery and obscurity; for to lift the curtain that conceals the Divine Presence is death. No mortal mind can penetrate the secrecy in which the Mighty One dwells and works. We can comprehend no more of His dealings with us and the motives that actuate Him than He sees fit to reveal. He orders everything in righteousness, and we are not to be dissatisfied and distrustful, but to bow in reverent submission. He will reveal to us as much of His purposes as it is for our good to know; and beyond that we must trust the hand that is omnipotent, the heart that is full of love (Review and Herald, Apr. 7, 1885). {LHU 361.5}

But many mysteries yet remain unrevealed. How much that is acknowledged to be truth is mysterious and unexplainable to the human mind! How dark seem the dispensations of Providence! What necessity there is for implicit faith and trust in God's moral government! We are ready to say with Paul, "How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" {6BC 1091.6}

"Needs to know" refers to something one needs to know. So when she speaks of "all that man needs to know of God" she means everything that needs to be known. I realize I'm just repeating what she said, but she said it so clearly, it's hard to see how else to say it. It's implying there are things that need to be known. And the Jesus Christ revealed these things.

When she says "or can know," that means that not only did Jesus Christ reveal all that can be known of God by man, but He *also* (i.e., in addition to that which man needs to know of God) revealed all man *can* know of God.

So Jesus Christ revealed:
1.Everything that man can know of God, which man needs to know.
2.Everything that man can know of God, including things which man doesn't need to know.



I think throughout eternity we will continue to learn new and wonderful things about God, but that, upon reflection, it will be seen that these things were revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ.

Regarding your quotes, I don't think they're disagreeing with the idea that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ.

It's basically the same idea that Jesus Christ Himself shared, that "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

Can you name anything Jesus revealed about God that we do not need to know right now?

And, can you name a time when Jesus, while here in the flesh, employed the "withdraw and permit" principle of allowing death and destruction to happen?

And, can you name a time when Jesus, while here in the flesh, commanded someone to stone a sinner to death?

Why are you asking this? I don't think her point was that Jesus Christ revealed things about God we don't need to know, but she was writing, and had the thought, "Everything man needs to know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ," and then, as she was writing that, she had the additional thought, "Not only that, but everything man *can* know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ," or, in other words, there is nothing man can know of God which Jesus Christ did not reveal.

I don't know how else one can read the statement "All that can be known of X was revealed by Y" other than "There is nothing that can be known of X which was not revealed by Y."



Yes. We've been through this. But tell me please, why are you asking this question?



Why, again, are you asking this question?

Are you trying to point out things we need to know of God, or can know of God, that Jesus didn't reveal? Or do you have some other point to make?

From my perspective, the point would be the fact that Jesus has been revealing God to us "from the foundation of the world." Does not the Bible say that is when the Lamb was slain? The Lamb referred to, of course, is none other than our Lord and Savior.

Jesus' life has been "from everlasting to everlasting." I know we have been through this before, but I can fully agree with Mrs. White's statement, considering it was Jesus who walked with Enoch, Jesus who led the children of Israel of out Egypt, who guided them in the wilderness, who met with Moses on the mount, and who taught them His commandments. Jesus has always been our King, our Guide. It has always been He who has revealed the Father to us. As I understand, it was also Jesus who walked and talked with Adam and Eve, and not the Father.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

PS--I've been very busy this week, and I know there's a few threads that I was needing to respond to, but never had enough time. Hopefully I can catch up sometime.

But that's not her point, GC. In fact, that way of interpreting things, IMO, makes the exact opposite point that she was trying to make, and John as well.

In point of fact, God was not understood. So Jesus came to reveal Him. *That* revelation is what she's talking about, which she makes clear in context.



This is clearly dealing with Christ's incarnation, as is John, whom she quoted. Here's another translation of John 1:18



Ellen White speaks to the misunderstanding of God's character here:



Please note:

1.The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. (This is in spite of what had been done in the OT)
2.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 is something which had not been done, which remained to be done, and was done by Jesus Christ in the flesh).
3.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.(This is like John 1:18, which refers to Christ's being "in the bosom of the Father," or, as another version puts it, "He who knew Him best.")

Now how was Satan's deceptive power broken? By revealing the truth.

IMO, if we don't perceive that Jesus Christ in the flesh did something important, vitally important, by means of His revelation of the Father, we're missing something vital. When Jesus Christ said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," He was proclaiming the Gospel. The Gospel is the Good News about God. God is not like the devil has portrayed him to be, but He is like this! Behold Me and see!

A couple more statements which deal with this theme:



This points out that the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was "the revelation of God." Such a vital purpose (His "whole purpose") cannot be overemphasized.



We are drawn back to God by beholding His character, which Jesus Christ revealed, especially in His death. She looks to have Peter's statement in mind here:

She's doing well, but still has quite a bit of pain.

That doctor was pretty evil and Satanic for causing her this excruciating pain. If the doctor had not made the cuts herself, but instead just allowed the drug dealers outside to come in and cause my wife this pain by cutting her up, things would be very different.

Perhaps sin, rather than the doctor, is responsible for the pain she's experiencing.

In all seriousness, I hope she does well, and suffers as little as possible.

Because you stated, "Everything that man can know of God, including things which man doesn't need to know."


Again, "needs to know" does not imply everything there is to know. In the military we used the phrase, "On a need to know basis". We only told the troops what they needed to know, which, by the way, excluded a ton of information they didn't need to know. And, of course, "can know" refers to one's ability to grasp and comprehend something. When my kids were small, I only told them things their young minds could grasp, which, by the way, excluded a ton of information they could not comprehend.


I believe Jesus revealed them. It's just that I don't believe He revealed them while He was here in the flesh. I believe Jesus' revelation of God includes both the OT and the NT. I do not limit it to the NT. Your view (i.e. Jesus revealed the Father more clearly in the NT) seems to be at odds with the following passage:

"The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New. It is the light from the prophetic past that brings out the life of Christ and the teachings of the New Testament with clearness and beauty." {DA 799.2}

I asked the two unanswered questions above because I do not know what you believe about it. As far as I know, you have never clearly stated why you think Jesus in the OT commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. You cite your humane hunter story and then trust that it clearly states your position. But it doesn't, at least, not for me.

The only thing I get from it is that the young man's father gave in against his wishes and taught his son how to hunt humanely, and that in so doing he ran the risk of people misunderstanding him and concluding he is in favor of hunting. But I don't see how this insight explains why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. We're not talking about killing wild game; we're talking about killing human beings.

No, in this case the "sin" definitely would not have made the incisions on its own. The "sin" caused pain, but it wasn't nearly as bad as the incisions. It was definitely the doctor who made the cuts, not the "sin."

And by all accounts, she did it herself. I'm glad for that, since she is the expert on what to cut, where to cut, how far to cut, etc. Letting the drug dealers perform this crucial task would not have been good for my wife.


Thanks.

I tell her that the suffering she's experiencing now is much more preferable to the ultimate consequences of not addressing her problem. Pain that leads to life is better than comfort that leads to death.

I wouldn't be qualified to say what we need to know and what we don't. God knows. You understand that what one needs to know is a subset of what one can know, don't you?



Right. "Can know" implies this. "Need to know" is a subset of "can know."



She said "all that man can know," so she didn't qualify this, other than limit it to man.



Well, that's what she said.



John made the same point (which she quoted).



Of course it does. But her point is that all that man know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ during His incarnation. That means whatever was revealed in the OT was also revealed while Jesus was with us in the flesh. To put it another way, there was nothing lacking in Jesus Christ's revelation of the Father during His humanity.



Ellen White did. Not limit in the sense that Jesus didn't reveal things at other times, but limit in the sense that Jesus Christ's revelation of God, during His incarnation, was a full and complete revelation of God. It wasn't lacking, as you're appearing to understand it.



"My" view is based on passages such as the following:




Please note:

1.The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. (This is in spite of what had been done in the OT)
2.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 is something which had not been done, which remained to be done, and was done by Jesus Christ in the flesh).
3.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.(This is like John 1:18, which refers to Christ's being "in the bosom of the Father," or, as another version puts it, "He who knew Him best.")

Now how was Satan's deceptive power broken? By revealing the truth.

IMO, if we don't perceive that Jesus Christ in the flesh did something important, vitally important, by means of His revelation of the Father, we're missing something vital. When Jesus Christ said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," He was proclaiming the Gospel. The Gospel is the Good News about God. God is not like the devil has portrayed him to be, but He is like this! Behold Me and see!

A couple more statements which deal with this theme:



This points out that the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was "the revelation of God." Such a vital purpose (His "whole purpose") cannot be overemphasized.



We are drawn back to God by beholding His character, which Jesus Christ revealed, especially in His death. She looks to have Peter's statement in mind here:



Regarding the quote you cited, in the OT, the Savior was pointed to prophetically. This is pointed to by the quote itself:



The prophetic past is referring to the prophecies of Christ. In the NT we get to see the revelation.

In the sentence immediately before where you started quoting her, we have the topic sentence of the paragraph, which is:



It's helpful to take into account the context of statements.

In Hebrews we read:



Something special happened when Christ came! The whole universe received a revelation of the Father that had never been seen. God in all His splendor was revealed in human flesh. "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." There was never a time in all human history that this was the case, until Christ.



You've asked this dozens of times. I've been very patient about this, but not everyone feels the same way about being repeatedly asked something and having this characterized as "unanswered."

I've discussed why we see things differently, and what I think the right way of proceeding is. Specifically, we're told that the atonement is the great truth around which all truths cluster, and that all things should be studied in the light of the cross in order to understand them. So I suggest doing this.

You say you're unhappy with my answer, which is your prerogative, but IMO it's unreasonable of you to characterize the dozens of pages I've written to answer your questions as not answering them, as well as quite odd that you would say you don't know what I believe, given how much I've written. But if you still don't know, in spite of all I've written, I doubt anything else I'd write would help.

I'd once again suggest studying the subject in the light of the cross.

Ok, Arnold. If you prefer to believe the doctor is responsible for your wife's pain, rather than sin, or her sickness, that's fine. Likewise if you prefer to believe that God is responsible for people's pain rather than sin. We all interpret things according to our paradigm. The Calvinist reads the Scriptures and see evidence that there's no such thing as free will.

My question to you is, what's your motivation in seeing things this way? That is, why do you prefer seeing God as responsible for these things rather than sin?

if you had read what i actually wrote instead of what your mind said i had written you would not have addressed me like this.

i have defended tom because of the way i have seen him treated. i would defend the pope if i perceived him being treated in a manner that i do not perceive to be Christlike.

but we all seem to perceive "Christlike" behavior differently. a recent contributor here and his buddy thought it was quite permissable to call me a lesbian because i put up a 16 page article that had one paragraph relating to homosexuality last year elsewhere. of course the buddy thought calling any woman lesbian, dike, etc., were very acceptable and "Christlike".

a common tactic by several practiced against me, as well as others that saw an issue differently than they, is to misrepresent, slander, malign.....

so i perceive it all depends what one believes is permissable behavior, or behavior that Jesus Himself practiced.

i hope and pray for a rapid and as painfree recovery for your wife as God will grant. i also pray that life will remain fairly smooth for your family during this time. may all Gods children say amen.

reading this which is saying the same thing over and over again seems to me is that your issue is with what ellen white wrote. it is very clear to some of us that she meant specifically Christs incarnation and life, not from eden to His incarnation.

but yet, if im understanding correctly, it seems perfectly clear to others that she meant from eden to His death and not specifically His incarnation and life.

again this seems to be quite clearly stating prophecy foretold Christs life for some of us, yet it seems to just as clearly, for others, mean His "dealings" from eden til His death.

actually what i keep reading is from egypt, not eden.

so as long as the statements are read and interpreted differently how can there can there be any kind of understanding?

i should have read further. apparently my points were already covered.

I'm one of the ones to whom is seems clear this statement is dealing with Christ's incarnation and human life. Indeed, I don't see how "taking humanity upon Him" and "He became flesh" can be speaking of anything other than Christ's incarnation and human life.

Regarding the other statement, I started out assuming that she wasn't contradicting what she had written elsewhere, and saw that the context was:



which verified what I thought she was getting at. There has to be other statements from the SOP which speak of Christ's revelation of the Father in His humanity being unique. I think I've thought of one:



I'll bet there's a bunch of these in "The Desire of Ages."

I have a new quest.

there are. all through her writings because ive seen them. hence my surprise at the reinterpretation.

Did you write more than I quoted above? I'm pretty sure I read it completely and accurately. And I appreciate your concern. Thanks.

I'm guessing it's the 2nd part that's getting your feathers all ruffled up. It wasn't a "serious" comment, as evidenced by the at the end. I think Tom "got it" based on his reply.

And that was a good thing, since it was also a fish for Tom. I saw this as a very practical example of the concepts we've been exploring here. (Note: We homeschoolers are always in teaching mode, and are quick to find and use "teaching moments" in everyday life. For instance, I once used cutting tofu for lunch as a tool to teach a little geometry to my kids. And you can be sure that I've been milking this surgery for worship as much as I can.)

My comment is now bearing fruit in that it has revealed a premise that I wanted to address last week, but have not had the chance. The premise is now more apparent, and I hope to address it soon.


I don't think he's been treated in an unchristlike manner in these discussions. Sure we disagree, and very vehemently at times, but that doesn't mean we do not have Christian love for each other. If I think someone is in error and I do nothing to correct them, that is proof that I do not love that person.

But there's another thing you should consider. If Tom has been treated unfairly, God will give him grace to overcome the persecution. However, God does not promise to give YOU any grace for TOM's troubles. So don't take other people's burdens upon yourself; it will cause you grief that you might not be called upon to bear.


Thanks. I appreciate it.

This is pretty cryptic. When I made my comment about "pulling teeth," it's things like this that come to mind. That is, it's not a normal conversation back and forth where one trades ideas. *Occasionally*, IMO, it's OK to hold off on some point, because you want to set up a foundation, but to do this too often makes for a frustrating experience.

Instead of sarcasm, etc., more laying out what you think and why I believe would make the process more pleasant for those with whom you are discussing things, if that's something important to you.

Here, for example, you made a comment last week(!) that you claim is "bearing fruit" in that it is "revealing a premise" which you hope to address soon! That's a long time to drag a thing out. Why not just write out a well reasoned post which makes the points you wish to make?

I don't even see how the things you are writing have to do with the points I was making. I was discussing God's supposedly inflicting excruciating pain against those who act contrary to His wishes. I see this as contrary to the principles of God's government for a number of reasons. For example, we're told that compelling power is to be found only understand Satan's government, but upping the ante on pain and destruction until you get your way seems to me as fine an expression of compelling power as one could hope to find. I also don't find the violent ways by which God supposed acted to be in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed of God's character.

Now you're talking about other things, like a Doctor's causing pain in order to heal a patient. I don't see the connection here.



If you wish to know my opinion regarding this, I'd be happy to share it.





To stick up for someone who you believe is being unfairly treated is completely Biblical.

you so totally misunderstood. and it isnt the first time.

i said the sky was blue. somehow you read that i said the sky was green and are taking me to task for it, as usual. your problem, my brother, and i will just have to leave you bear it yourself.

i guess we all pick up different points in the scriptures.

This would make a great quotable quote. Well put.

Are you qualified to say Jesus revealed things about God that we do not need to know? And, no, I don’t see it as a subset.


Do you think there is any possibility that my view of the two phrases is correct? Or, are you convinced you’re right and I’m wrong?


Awesome study, Tom. Thank you. I think I’ll read it in Sabbath school class tomorrow. Well done. Again, thank you. Having said that, I hate to continue on a different vein. While I agree with what you posted above, I do not agree that Ellen White’s 8T 286 statement excludes Jesus’ revelation of God in the OT. However, please bear in mind that I also believe Jesus revealed certain aspects of God’s character by teaching them rather than by demonstrating them (i.e. employ the “withdraw and permit” principle or command people to kill sinners). Seems like I recall you agreeing with this point.


Tom, the bulk of what you’ve written about it is along the same lines of your answer here, namely, alluding to what we should do to arrive at an answer. I can honestly say you have never clearly explained your position, your conclusion. I doubt anybody here can summarize what you believe. Again, as far as I know, you have never clearly stated why you think Jesus in the OT commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death.

You wrote, “. . . we're told that the atonement is the great truth around which all truths cluster, and that all things should be studied in the light of the cross in order to understand them. So I suggest doing this.” Even if you were to do this, how would it change your summary? For example, if you were to say, “Therefore, in light of these things, I think Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death because . . . .” How would you finish this sentence?

for me, these kinds of questions and pursuits leads away from what the scripture/sop stated and just wanders into confusion.

in other words we are no longer thinking of what the messenger of the Lord meant and meditating on that, we are now dissecting another person.

dont debate the statements! meditate on them prayerfully! why interrogate and wonder off into confusion, far, far from God?

I’m sure you are aware of the fact that this statement is one of many in a chapter entitled – The Essential Knowledge. In this chapter she, among other things, writes:


In this chapter Mrs. White speaks of the various and different ways God seeks to reveal Himself to us. "The whole Bible is a revelation of the glory of God in Christ." Yes, the revelation of Jesus, while He was here in the flesh, is by far the best. However, it is also evident that she did not say Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God.

On the contrary, she clearly says there are many things about God that we are too dull and dimwitted to grasp or comprehend and that because of this He has not yet revealed them. Not even the angels know everything there is to know about God. Why? Because He has not yet revealed everything there is to know about Himself. This is the point I've been trying to make all along.

God saw that a clearer revelation than nature was needed to portray both His personality and His character. He sent His Son into the world to reveal, so far as could be endured by human sight, the nature and the attributes of the invisible God. {8T 265.5}

” 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}

so i guess the question is,

why keep running away from it?

why run to other places to escape it?

that is how it is coming across to me as an observer, anyway. not only that i feel like some arent just doing the running themselves, they are also trying to drag others along with them. we'll run off exploring on all these sideroads, anything but stay on the straight and narrow.

Perhaps you don't understand what a subset is. Many people who aren't mathematically inclined don't, so this isn't an insult. I'll explain it.

A set X is a subset of set Y if all of the members of X are in Y. In order for X to not be a subset of Y, that means there is some member of set X which is not in set Y. So if we say X is the set "things man needs to know of God" and Y is "things man can know of God," then your assertion that you don't see X as a subset of Y means that you believe there is something which man needs to know of God but can't, which is obviously nonsense, and so cannot be true.

So X must be a subset of Y. The two could be the same set, which is probably what you have in mind. That is, you believe that the set of things which man needs to know of God is identical to the set of things man can know of God. One would have to define what "need" means in this context. If you have in mind "need" in terms of "to be saved," then this seems to me very unlikely to be true. That is, there are things which Jesus revealed of God that we do not need to know in order to be saved. If you say "need" in terms of "in order to be translated," I think that could be true. That is, to be translated, we need to know everything Jesus revealed of God.



What specifically are you perceiving that I am saying that's different than what you are saying? I'm asking you this because it's not clear to me what you're asking me if I'm convinced I'm right about and your wrong.



Thanks a lot. I appreciate that.



Clearly it's not included. She wrote:



Obviously this isn't talking about the OT. Right? There aren't many things clearer than this.



What Ellen White wrote is that "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." So why not stick with the word used? Christ "revealed" God, in what He said, taught, and lived. All of this testimony is important.



kland could for sure. I know of others who could as well, but I won't name them.



You're whole way of thinking is wrong, IMO. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but merely to point out that I can't even begin to answer your question because there's no foundation upon which I could start. Or, trying to say this in another way, you are assuming things which I don't see as true. That is, I disagree with your assumptions, your paradigm, your whole way of looking at this. So there's no way for me to answer your question in a way you can understand. We would have to build some sort of bridge upon which to communicate. I've suggested ways that this bridge could be built.

The story of the father/hunter and his son was an attempt. But this story doesn't make sense to you. I said a number of times that if you didn't understand the story, that I could do a better job of explaining it than the story does.

I'm sorry I can't answer you in a way that's more satisfying to you, but I don't see how it would be possible to do so. I would, once again, suggest going back to the cross. We are told that all truths are to be understood in the light of the cross. So what happened there? How do we see God acting? How do we see man acting? What were the principles, the dynamics, involved there? Only by understanding the answers to these questions can we begin to tackle the more difficult ones, I believe.

You'll recall that I resisted your attempts a couple of years ago to discuss these things with you. It was only because of your undaunted persistence that I finally succumbed. Do you recall this? I don't mind having given in, because I learned a lot in our discussions, and I thank you for that. However, if this were going on today, I don't think I would have agreed, as I'm more convinced than ever of the truth of EGW's words that an understand of the cross is vital. And I think your understanding of the cross is way off.

I'm not saying mine is perfect, far from it, and I would expect that I can learn from insights you have on the subject. However, given the reality of how you view the cross, I don't think there's any way you could understand the truth of what I'm saying about these other subjects (assuming that what I'm saying is actually true). Therefore I think we would be better off discussing other subjects, such as the judgment and the cross. Also the fall. I think these are the foundational subjects upon which the others depend.

So you say I misunderstood, yet you say nothing to clarify.

You say I have a problem, yet you leave me to bear it without your help.

The father chastens the son he loves. That's in the Bible. What you are doing, that's not love. Telling someone their zipper is open is love; letting them walk around unzipped is not.

I'll take pain any time over this namby-pamby sentimentalism that many mistake for love.

In case I was not clear, I am telling you right now that what you are doing and the attitude you are exhibiting is unloving. I'm simply doing for you what I wish others would do for me.

Please do. If you have experienced bad treatment, especially by me, I would like to know.

To stick up for someone is fine. But to take offense for someone is not. And sticking up for someone by defending error is also not fine.

My wife just had major surgery, remember? I spent most of last week preparing for it, and this week was spent in recovering from it. And it's far from over. So, drive by postings is all I can do.

Anyway, since I have a little time to address the hidden premise that I only recently glimpsed, here goes....


When I read that, of course I agreed with the idea that the cross sheds light on everything.

But I was wondering how this applied to post #116691, to which it was a reply. In that post, I pointed out that according to all the accounts we have of two events - the stoning of the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath and the execution of the unrepentant calf-worshipers - God ordered pain and death to be meted out by the Israelites.

Of your list of 4 items of increasing difficulty, though you did not mention where in inspiration we find such a listing, you said, "It seems to me impossible that if one has the wrong ideas about 1 that this won't permeate the others." IOW, if one does not understand #1 correctly, #4, the point you were replying to, cannot be understood correctly. That seems reasonable based on the GW 315 quote.

However, and this was the first glimpse of the premise, I could not see how that applies to my post about God giving the orders to kill the stick-gatherer and the calf-worshipers. Yes, we must understand the atonement properly in order for every piece of the puzzle to fit properly, but that does not impact the historical facts of the events I mentioned. IOW, even if I misunderstand the atonement, how can that change the facts regarding whether or not God ordered Moses to kill those people? It does not; what happened then is set in stone, regardless of my understanding or lack thereof.

So I wondered what you could be thinking. Then this one popped in my inbox.


Here's what caught my eye: If you prefer to believe the doctor is responsible for your wife's pain, rather than sin, or her sickness, that's fine.

Now, here was a historical event - my wife's surgery. It already happened, so nothing can be done to change what happened. Before it happened, the doctor told me that she was going to cut my wife. Afterwards, the doctor told me that she did cut my wife. Every eyewitness to the event documented that the doctor did, in fact, cut my wife.

Today, my wife tells me that the cuts hurt. These are cuts that, by the testimony of all involved, the doctor made. Since I was not there, I cannot dispute the testimony, even if I wanted to. Therefore, I must conclude that the doctor caused the cuts which are now causing the pain.

Of course, I could credit the pain to the scalpel that the doctor used, or the nerve endings that are sending signals to the brain. But that would be silly. So let's just skip that. The doctor was the motive force in making these cuts. So she was responsible for the cuts. And, without a doubt, they hurt. Therefore, the doctor is responsible for the pain.

The claim could be made that the disease caused this pain. Yes, the disease caused pain, but it was not THIS pain; it was another kind of pain. The disease did not cause these incisions. The pain from the disease is gone. What is left is the pain from the incisions that the doctor, NOT the disease, made.

But the new insight I'm getting from you is that you claim that what I "prefer to believe" impacts who made these cuts or who caused the pain. You asked, "[W]hat's your motivation in seeing things this way?" It is as if I need a motivation other than seeing things for what they are.

I am an engineer by education. We are trained to analyze things based on what IS, not what we would LIKE THEM TO BE. We left that kind of discussion to the history and literature majors on the north end of campus. On the south side, we tested our theories on cold, hard observations. Facts always trumped feelings.

Here is one of the historical facts in question: God sometimes commanded the Israelites, through Moses, to kill rebels.

As far as the stick-gatherer and the calf-worshipers, all the testimony we have - the Bible and SOP - say that God commanded the COI to do it. Regardless of what I prefer to believe, or what my motivations are, or what I would like to feel about it, or anything else about me, the documentation of this event all say that God ordered the killing of those rebels. I take that as a data point, and formulate my theory such that it accommodates that point.

Does your theory of the atonement, of God's abhorrence of violence, etc., take into account that God commanded those killings? Or do you believe that God did not command those killings?

To make it very easy to see if we're even looking at the same thing, let's boil it down to determining what happened in the desert. Did God order Moses to have the stick-gatherer and the calf-worshipers killed by the COI?

I say, Yes. What say you?

And that is the same answer I give to the question in the subject: Does God sometimes cause pain? Regardless of any misunderstandings there may be about God's purposes or motives, one event is enough to answer the question in the affirmative. And we have here two such events.

Let's go back to my wife's surgery. The disease caused pain, but it never caused as much pain as the cuts are now causing. The pain the doctor caused is excruciating, while the pain the disease caused was only debilitating. Definitely, the pain the doctor caused hurts worse.

Moreover, the disease, had it been left unchecked, would have eventually decreased in pain. It would actually have made my wife numb to any pain. She would have become unconscious, then she would have died. Letting the disease progress would have entailed less pain, but less life.

I look at the situation and freely admit that the doctor caused pain. But it is a pain I praise and thank her for, because when taking everything into account, the alternative is worse.

as a child and young adult i could never understand why it was wrong for the papacy to hurt people but it was ok for adventists to hurt people.

and the message came across very strong that it was ok to hurt people, disrespect and mistreat those we deemed as "bad" in some form.

i struggled with that for years. the only thing i could figure out was that it was wrong for the papacy because they were wrong but it was ok for us to hurt people because we were right.

*********************

but we forget the lessons of the past. so many in the church held jones and waggoner to be in "error".....according to the sop they refused to unite in prayer with j and w, and they refused to investigate the position being presented.

they felt the law was being undermined.

the jews before them felt that Jesus was undermining the law.

the jews persectuted Jesus and slammed Him on a cross, then went after the disciples.

ellen white said if j and w fell away it would be the fault of their brethern.

but i guess it is still ok to hurt people as long as we have decided those people are in "error". we are, after all, just as infallible as the jews and those of ellen whites day, are we not?

after all, the reasoning is that people have to be hurt if it will bring about a greater good. the sop and research has proven that so very wrong, but what would they know?

*******************

Regarding you're being busy, I understand. But stringing things along is not a new thing. At any rate, I really appreciate your prompt, detailed reply! Especially given your circumstances. Thank you!



What happened is, of course, set in stone, but not our perception of what happened. The same thing could be said of the cross. What happened there? That's, of course, set in stone as well. But our perception of that event isn't, and as our perception of that event changes, so will our perception of other events.

Regarding God's causing pain, I wasn't discussing this as a general principle, but was specifically addressing a subset of this, in particular, God's (supposedly) causing excruciating pain upon His enemies in order to get them to do His will. It appears what you are doing is taking this specific principle, causing it to include a greater scope than intended, finding a counter-example of that greater scope, and then concluding that the original principle is false.

If the truth causes us pain, because of sin, and God revealed the truth to us, which causes us pain, that's in my view a reasonable way of looking at things. This could be viewed in a similar to a doctor's using a painful technique to heal an illness.

However, back to God's revealing truth. There's another issue to consider. Why should the revelation of truth cause pain? It shouldn't. It's only because of the presence of sin that truth causes pain. So is this God's "fault" or sin's? Surely it is sin that is responsible, because without sin, there would be no pain. It doesn't make sense to ascribe the blame to something like the skillful revelation of truth.

To give an example of skillful revelation of truth, consider the case of Simon the leper. From the SOP we learn that he led Mary, who had crashed the party, into sin. When he said within himself, "If this man were a prophet, He would know what manner of woman this is," he was exhibiting hypocrisy of the highest order. Christ could have exposed him in righteous indignation, and have been totally justified in so doing. But Christ loved Simon's soul. He wanted to save Simon. So he told Simon a parable, which only Simon understood. By the parable Simon understood that Christ knew what he had done, that Christ could have exposed him publicly, but didn't, instead telling him a story that exposed him as a hypocrite, but did so in a way that only Simon could understand. Beautiful!

So did Christ cause Simon pain? One could say so, but surely the real culprit was Simon's own hypocrisy.

Regarding the COI in the wilderness, this seems to me to be quite a different situation than the plagues. In the one case, God is supposedly causing violent things to happen to inflict His enemies with pain to force them to do His will, and in another He is supposedly ordering others to do something similar in His name, which seems, if anything, even worse. A brief, and I'm sure insufficient answer, to your question to me regarding what happened in respect to the calf-worshippers, I don't perceive what happened there as you do. If I had to answer your question "yes" or "no," I'd have to answer "no," but the reason for the "no" would be because my perception of the whole incident is different than yours. I'd have to go into a lot more detail to explain this satisfactorily. Right now I'm more interested in pursuing the questions we were speaking of, involving whether God inflicts others with excruciating pain if its eternally beneficial.

I'm particularly interested in the implications to our own behavior. From your answers, it appears to me that you feel it would be perfectly appropriate for us, as God's representatives, to inflict others with excruciating pain if its eternally beneficial. I'm sure you'd agree with me that we don't have the ability to properly judge such things (i.e. when such pain should be inflicted) so would have to leave that to God, and merely respond to His orders. So if God ordered you to kill or maim in His name, presumably you would do so.

I wouldn't, because I would never believe it was God telling me to do so. kland was getting at this same thing earlier. Hope he drops by to contribute some thoughts.

At any rate, one can see the importance of an issue such as this. Before Christ comes a second time, Satan will impersonate Christ, trying to get us to do things for him while we think we are honoring God. This is what the Great Controversy is all about: who is God? What is He like?

A comment regarding the engineering points. I work for a software development company. When dealing with software, you have to get things right, because the computer is stupid, only doing precisely what it's told to do. So tell it the wrong thing, and that's what it does, despite your intentions as to what you want it to do, or what you think it should be doing. So I'm very well acquainted with the perspective you are speaking of.

However, I don't think human history can be analyzed in terms of "data points." It's not like you can look at a piece of code, and see "Oops! That says '1' instead of '2' That's why this whole things working wrong!"

This just happened to me, and is actually an excellent example of what I'm getting at. I had to get someone to help me, because I couldn't figure out what was going on. That's because I had certain ideas fixed in my head. In my head, there was a "2" there, but in reality there was a "1." But because of my presuppositions, I couldn't see the "2". A friend helped me, looked at things, without the presuppositions that I had, and found the error.

His perspective was different than mine, which enabled him to see the truth.

Now if perspective can cause us to improperly view something as closed to interpretation as what a number is, how much more so when we are analyzing human history.

Regarding the list of difficulty, I made that up. It seemed reasonable to me as I considered discussions I've had with people. I'm, of course, coming at things from the perspective that my view of things is generally correct, and then consider on what points people agree with me. I find there are oodles of people who agree with me in regards to the first two points (the death of Christ, and the judgment) but many fewer regarding the last two points (if God acts violently or orders others to do so). The OT is so overwhelmingly violent, it seems, on the fact of things, crazy to even consider such a notion. But when I look at Jesus Christ, I'm constrained to believe what I see in Him, and conclude that the OT has simply been grossly misunderstood.

Going back to the COI question, if you wish a more detailed explanation, please go to http://sinbearer.com/light_on_the_dark_side_of_god.htm and read chapter 9.

MM, please take a look at http://sinbearer.com/light_on_the_dark_side_of_god.htm chapter 9. This is a good explanation of what I've been trying to say.

Regarding you personally, I'll send you a PM. I'll make some general comments.

I think my positions have often been grossly misrepresented. So many times I can't count I've pointed out "I never said this." I've asked to be quoted, and taken to task for daring to insist that I be quoted accurately or have my positions not grossly misrepresented. I don't think that's fair.

Often there have been comments directed at me personally as opposed to addressing the ideas being shared.

Often the tone of comments in general is very unpleasant. Some posts I've found to be downright nasty in tone.

I'd be curious to know what Teresa had in mind.

Having said some negative things, I'll say some positive ones. When I first started posting with MM, we both said things the other didn't like. I'm talking about the positions taken, but how the posting was done; words used to describe the other or the other's view, how questions were put, etc. So he told me what he didn't like, and I told him what I didn't like, and we've accommodated each other pretty well. We disagree on a lot of things, but are able to communicate in a way that makes our conversations not unpleasant for the other.

Rosangela is another example. We never had the difficulties that MM and I sometimes had, but she improved in terms of her discussion technique and I think she makes a good role model. She rarely makes personal comments, and is accurate in quoting others and correctly representing their positions. She also presents well thought out arguments.

I'm not following this. If you see someone being poorly treated, why would it be wrong to be offended by this? I don't understand this. I also don't understand your comment that we shouldn't be burdened by another being poorly treated. Isn't this the Spirit of Christ?



What do you think you're doing?

Seriously, I think this is a funny comment you made. Obviously if you and I are disagreeing on a point, at least one of us is wrong. If you're wrong, and you defend your position, then you are defending error. If someone else is wrong, and you defend their position, then you are doing the very thing which you say is "not fine."

Unless we are perfect in what we believe, the only recourse would seem to be just keep silent. I think the real thing to watch out for is not being open to truth. If we are open to truth, then even though we defend error, we'll be willing to change our ideas. Isn't that what the point of these discussions is?

**************

it has been pointed out to me privately that my wording was poorly chosen. for that i apologize. i saw it more as a general statement but understand it was taken "personally".

again i do apologize.

agreed. when i first started posting i had a hard time with her, but it can be a joy to interact with her now. she may be on a different track than i am at times but generally speaking there is much more of a discussion going on with her.

You wrote, ". . . we are no longer thinking of what the messenger of the Lord meant and meditating on that . . ." This assumes, of course, that your understanding of what she meant is correct. Are you sure, though, that your personal biases aren't altering what she actually meant to say, that your conclusions aren't far afield?

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying your understanding of what she meant IS wrong. Neither am I saying it is right. Honestly, I have no idea what you believe. You seem to think her statements are so plain that they are too obvious to require comment or interpretation. But if it were true she would not counsel us to compare what she says with everything else she wrote about it.

No one statement is an island that stands alone. There is a sea of information that must be considered before drawing concrete conclusions. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." Only thus does the beautiful balance emerge in all its luster and grandeur. Discussing different ways of viewing what she meant is one of many ways to arrive at the truth. "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." (Prov 27:17) The following insights are pertinent:

Harsh words from a harsh person? Is that what you're attempting to prove? Can you not think of a less critical way of conveying your thoughts? Please stop and think about the effect of your words before you post them. Are they calculated to inform and uplift and encourage? Or, are they designed to insult and offend and discourage?

In the quotes I posted above Ellen White makes it clear that Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God. This insight does not take away from the fact that Jesus is the by far the best revelation of God. But it also true He is not the only revelation of God.

If she did, then she contradicted the following:



You are saying, "Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God." while EGW is saying that He did.

Or, if you're right in your conclusions above, in one place she is saying "Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God." while in another place she is saying that He did.

This is right, isn't it?

The impression I got from the very first time I posted this quote (i.e. 8T 286) is that you didn't believe it was true (that is, the Jesus Christ, in His humanity, revealed all man can know of God). I can tell you, it came as quite a revelation to me when I first became aware of it (the 8T 286 quote). It's been quite a number of years now, 5 or 6 I think, and I still find it amazing.

Thank you for further explaining what you meant by “subset”. You are definitely more informed about such things than I am, and I appreciate the lesson. You are a good teacher. However, I do not view the two phrases as subsets or the same sets. Again, “needs to know” and “can know” are referring to two different aspects of knowledge. The one deals with content, whereas the other deals with ability. Yes, the knowledge Jesus revealed about God is what we “need to know”. I agree with the way you differentiated between salvation and translation.

You overlooked the first question in my post above, namely, Are you qualified to say Jesus revealed things about God that we do not need to know? How can you be so sure He revealed things about God we don’t need to know? Do you have an example in mind?


I wrote, “Again, ‘needs to know’ does not imply everything there is to know. . . And, of course, ‘can know’ refers to one's ability to grasp and comprehend something.” You seem to be objecting to this way of looking at it. Do you think I’m looking at it incorrectly?


You are very welcome. Something came up, though, and I didn’t make it to church. I hope to share it with them one of these days. Again, thank you for putting so much time and effort into writing such a great study.


Did you happen to read what I posted in #116926? In that section in 8T Ellen White was addressing false views regarding the person of God the Father. In it she says, "The whole Bible is a revelation of the glory of God in Christ." Yes, the revelation of Jesus, while He was here in the flesh, is by far the best. However, it is also evident that she did not say Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God.


I agree. “Revealed” includes what He taught. And He said He was in the future going to employ the “withdraw and permit” principle of allowing death and destruction to happen. He will also command holy angels to pour out the seven last plagues.


I doubt it. I’ve seen no evidence of it on this forum.


You wrote, “I disagree with your assumptions, your paradigm, your whole way of looking at this.” How are we supposed to look at the following passage:


Is it absurd to ask, Why did Jesus command Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death?

You wrote, “I think your understanding of the cross is way off.” What do I believe about the cross that you think is way off? Are you referring to the “judicial punishment” aspect of it: “He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity and becomes sin itself for man.” (SR 225) “God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin.” (MB 114)

You wrote, “The story of the father/hunter and his son was an attempt [at building a bridge to understanding why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death]. But this story doesn't make sense to you.” Sure it makes sense to me. It’s a very good analogy. It explains why God risks being misunderstood. I just don’t think it explains why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. He wasn’t taking a risk. He was commanding them to do what the law demands and requires. “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Capital punishment is the penalty required by law. "In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." (Con 21) “But those who have not, through repentance and faith, secured pardon, must receive the penalty of transgression—‘the wages of sin.’ They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, ‘according to their works,’ but finally ending in the second death.” (GC 544) “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished ‘according to their deeds.’" (GC 673) She goes on to say:


“What did God command Moses to do with those who were guilty of adultery? They should be stoned to death. Does the punishment end there? No, they are to die the second death. The stoning system has been done away, but the penalty for transgressing God's law is not done away. If the transgressor does not heartily repent, he will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. {TSB 131.3}

I realize you are just sharing your personal opinion, but your opinion is unloving and unChristlike. Yes, you are entitled to it, but I believe such unsolicited opinions are harsh and counterproductive. It does not promote a positive study environment.

I concur with what Arnold stated above - "In case I was not clear, I am telling you right now that what you are doing and the attitude you are exhibiting is unloving. I'm simply doing for you what I wish others would do for me."

Every once in awhile people like you come along and destroy the atmosphere of this forum with their unloving words and attitudes. Eventually they get bored with the rest of us pleading with them to stop being so harsh and unloving and they go away. Sad to say, though, most of us do not miss them. The worst of it, though, is that in some cases other members are offended and go away, too.

I would prefer it, Teresaq, if you would learn not to share your harsh and unloving words. Please keep such opinions to yourself. Instead, share the truth as you see it. Nothing positive can come from attacking people that you disagree with. Yes, you can disagree with their point of view but not without sharing why and what you believe is true. I'm hoping you don't go away mad. I'm hoping you will be a positive part of these studies. Think about it.

it appears to be all in how one looks at it.

the penalty for drinking hemlock is death.

the penalty for ingesting arsenic is death.

the penalty for smoking is death.

the penalty for drug abuse is death.

the penalty for reckless driving is manglement or death.

a very tragic and heartbreaking recent example is, the penalty for an unhealthy lifestyle is death.

the penalty for breaking the 10c is death.

so, it seems to depend on how one looks at it.

i do not agree that that is what i am doing.

now how do i stop you from the way you address me. i have stated it everyway i know how but you do not see yourself as doing what i see.

what is the answer?

Everyone has a right to their own opinions, which are formed from ones own experience. However we all know that being a Christian is not easy, so if you find it difficult to be exercise patience with someone, then you know you are on the right track. Just persevere a bit longer and do the right thing.
FYI: We are all in the same boat, only advantage we have is we have accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior, which is a gift.

Lets keep this civil even if it means you have to bite on your lip.

God Bless,
Will

In the case of the plagues in Egypt, Ellen White wrote the following:


God commanded Pharaoh, “Let my people go, that they may serve me.” He sent plague after plague until His object was achieved, namely, “that thou mayest know that there is none like Me in all the earth.” “In His dealing with Pharaoh, the Lord manifested His hatred of idolatry and His determination to punish cruelty and oppression.” (ibid.) “God had judged the Egyptians by sending the plagues upon them, and made them hasten His people out of Egypt with all that they possessed.” {SR 120.2}

His point is clear and twofold . . .


. . ., namely, 1) The "withdraw and permit" principle accounts for all the death and destruction attributed to God, and 2) God capitulated, compromised, gave in to the wicked will of the COI and commanded them to totally obliterate their enemies "men, women, and children".

I didn't see where he addressed why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. But in response to number 2 above, I have some questions - What was God's original plan for ridding the Promised Land of her heathen inhabitants? Why did God cave in and let the COI kill thousands of men, women, and children?

Let's try again. We'll change the subject to something else, say, butterflies. "All that one needs to know about butterflies was revealed by Dr. Seuss." "All that one can know about butterflies was revealed by Dr. Seuss." The former is a subset of the latter. Why? Because only things which can be known about butterflies could possible be things one needs to know. Once can't need to know things which can't be known. Got it?



I addressed this.



I agree that "needs to know" does not necessarily imply everything there is to know. It is a subset. Possibly a proper subset, or possibly the same set. Regarding "can know," that means things which one can know. Both the following statements are talking about "things."

A.Things which need to be known.
B.Things which can be known.

Let's say there are 3 things which need to be known, 1, 2, and 3. The number of things which can be known would have to be at least 3. If they are 3, they are precisely things 1, 2, and 3. If they are more than 3, they include things 1, 2, and 3, The phrase "things which can be known," must, of necessity, including things 1, 2, and 3. There can be no thing which needs to be known which cannot be known.



Sure she did. Right here:



This is speaking of Christ in His humanity, which she makes clear by saying:



You're hard to understand sometimes, MM. She clearly said that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. It doesn't make sense to deny this. If you don't agree with this, that's another thing, but anyone can see what it says.



You doubt what? That kland could summarize it? Or that anyone else could? Keep in mind that not everyone who reads these posts posts themselves. So there are people reading things here that you may not be aware of. Also teresa might be able to summarize it. It wouldn't surprise me if Rosangela could as well. If you read the link I provided, chapter 9, you could summarize it yourself by simply copying and pasting from that.



I provided a link which discusses this.

The following insight is helpful:


The enforcement of capital punishment in accordance with the law of God was not the end of their punishment. It merely symbolized the full and final penalty awaiting them. Neither is the cause and effect deaths that result from breaking the natural laws the end of their punishment. It comes at the end of time. Again, Ellen White states it quite clearly:

What do you see me doing? Please post samples (include the context) of me doing something you find objectionable and unacceptable.

Will, good to see you again. It's been awhile. Hope all is well. And, thank you for the good advice.

I think rather than putting your own negative slant on what the write wrote, you'd be better off quoting her. After all, you complain when others do this to you. So why should you do it? Remember the Golden Rule!



His original plan was that the heathen repent and be converted.



Tsk, tsk! Remember the Golden Rule!

Here's what the author actually said:

MM, I feel constrained to point out that I think you're entire way of going about this is destined to be fruitless. I think to understand these things we need to study the life and character of Jesus Christ in His humanity, which the SOP tells us revealed everything we can know of God. I've also suggested that, given that all truths can only be known in the light of the cross, the great truth upon which all other truths cluster, it would be good to study that. But we spend 95% or more of our time here following the very approach I'm saying I disagree with.

How do you think Christ treated people? Would you say He was kind, gentle, and generous? Or vengeful, and violent? What do you think He taught? Did He teach us to be vengeful and violent, or to turn the other cheek? How did He Himself act when faced with torture and death by His enemies?

Do you think God is like this? Or is God fundamentally different in how He acts than what Jesus Christ lived and taught?

MM, I know you are "fixed in" to seeing the death of the wicked as being an imposed punishment, as opposed to a consequence of their own actions. Two questions come up. First of all, how does this fit in with DA 764?



Question two is, why do you think looking at sin as basically something innocuous, which only results in death in those who practice it because God kills them, as a superior way of looking at things then that sin results in death because of its nature? (i.e., that sin is lethal, as opposed to innocuous).

I'll tell you why I think the lethal view is superior. Under the lethal view, it is sin which is to be feared, and sin which is the enemy. Above all things, we need to be set free from its power. Under this paradigm, we see God as the Savior, who does whatever it takes, including sacrificing Himself in the person of His Son, to free us from its grips. We do not fear God, as one who will cause us excruciating pain and then kill us if we don't do what He says, but as one who warns us of the awful consequences of not believing what He tells us about sin and Satan.

If we view sin as innocuous, I don't see how we can avoid having negative views and feelings about God. In particular, it seems inevitable to me that we would be afraid of God. It seems our motivation in doing right would involving fearing the consequences of being caught in the hands of a vengeful God if we didn't.

youve forgotten already?!?

sorry, i forget others dont appear to have the memory God seems to have blessed me with.

i will save this and point it out each time it happens. i have just barely started documenting posts so dont have the specific times, yet.

having thought about your various posts and studied that chapter in light of those posts i would agree that it is accurate for what you believe.

but i need to stress, and strongly stress, that that is based on what she, the author, herself has said specifically and not on particular paraphrases, otherwise i would be slandering you and i do not wish to do that since it is a serious offense in the sight of God, justifiably warranting death, due to the serious repercussions it could cause to the person being slandered.

it is written: Deu 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
Deu 19:17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
Deu 19:18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
Deu 19:19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

sorry, mm. those quotes in no way discount the points made.

I believe drug abuse can lead to death if one does not quit, same with smoking..Just something to consider.
God Bless,
Will

i am amending my post #116941 so that it will hopefully not be as offensive. it was meant generally, but taken personally.

as a child and young adult i could never understand why it was wrong for the papacy to hurt people but it was ok for adventists to hurt people.

and the message came across very strong that it was ok to hurt people, disrespect and mistreat those we deemed as "bad" in some form.

i struggled with that for years. the only thing i could figure out was that it was wrong for the papacy because they were wrong but it was ok for us to hurt people because we were right.

************

but we forget the lessons of the past. so many in the church held jones and waggoner to be in "error".....according to the sop they refused to unite in prayer with j and w, and they refused to investigate the position being presented.

they felt the law was being undermined.

the jews before them felt that Jesus was undermining the law.

the jews persectuted Jesus and slammed Him on a cross, then went after the disciples.

ellen white said if j and w fell away it would be the fault of their brethern.

is it ok to hurt people as long as we have decided those people are in "error". do we think we are, after all, just as infallible as the jews and those of ellen whites day?

is the reasoning that people have to be hurt if it will bring about a greater good? hasn't the sop and research proven that so very wrong?

Your assumption is too far fetched to make your point. That is, the idea Dr. Seuss wrote everything I need to know about butterflies is audacious. He only wrote silly books for children. I am an adult. Let’s say I’m seeking a doctorate degree in butterflies. Is it true that Dr. Seuss wrote everything I need to know or can know about butterflies?

Let’s try again. In the context of disputing the claims of pantheism (the subject of 8T Section Five), how would I convey the idea that, due to our inadequate mental ability to fully comprehend God, the Bible only reveals those things we need to know or can know about God? (Note – I’m not saying this is what she was trying to convey, just asking how it could be conveyed).

From Section Five: 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} The whole Bible is a revelation of the glory of God in Christ. Received, believed, obeyed, it is the great instrumentality in the transformation of character. And it is the only sure means of intellectual culture. {8T 319.1}


You wrote, “I agree that ‘needs to know’ does not necessarily imply everything there is to know.” I agree. That’s the main point I’ve been trying to get across. And, I also agree that the person possessed of normal abilities (not mentally handicapped) has what it takes to understand everything that needs to be known of God. Again, “can know” is referring to one’s mental ability to comprehend what has been revealed.


Above you wrote, “I agree that ‘needs to know’ does not necessarily imply everything there is to know.” And I wrote above, “However, it is also evident that she did not say Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God.” It sounds like we’re saying the same thing.


I agree. “Revealed” includes what He taught. And He said He was in the future going to employ the “withdraw and permit” principle of allowing death and destruction to happen. He will also command holy angels to pour out the seven last plagues. These are attributes of God Jesus revealed in the OT.


It has yet to be seen if anyone you named can summarize your position, in particular why you think Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. Nor does the author of the book you linked explain it, at least I didn't see it.


Please point out where the author addressed these kinds of cases, namely, where Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death.

You wrote, “I think your understanding of the cross is way off.” What do I believe about the cross that you think is way off? Are you referring to the “judicial punishment” aspect of it: “He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity and becomes sin itself for man.” (SR 225) “God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin.” (MB 114)

You wrote, “The story of the father/hunter and his son was an attempt [at building a bridge to understanding why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death]. But this story doesn't make sense to you.” Sure it makes sense to me. It’s a very good analogy. It explains why God risks being misunderstood. I just don’t think it explains why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. He wasn’t taking a risk. He was commanding them to do what the law demands and requires. “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Capital punishment is the penalty required by law. "In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." (Con 21) “But those who have not, through repentance and faith, secured pardon, must receive the penalty of transgression—‘the wages of sin.’ They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, ‘according to their works,’ but finally ending in the second death.” (GC 544) “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished ‘according to their deeds.’" (GC 673) She goes on to say:


“What did God command Moses to do with those who were guilty of adultery? They should be stoned to death. Does the punishment end there? No, they are to die the second death. The stoning system has been done away, but the penalty for transgressing God's law is not done away. If the transgressor does not heartily repent, he will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. {TSB 131.3}

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Which quotes? Which points?

Do you see this as God causing pain and death? What about Jesus commanding Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death? Why do you think He commanded such things?

i usually review the last comments leading up to the post in question before i answer. just a suggestion.

Do you think that's always possible? Does comparing Jesus to God require abstraction? Maybe abstraction is not the correct word, but I think it is when you can relate one thing to another without having a specific and direct comparison, but able to abstract or generalize one to the other. What if someone is unable to think in an abstract way, would they be able to understand things Jesus revealed? As I have noticed, different people have different levels of thinking abstractly, or perhaps can think that way, but unable to make application of it, but do you think some are unable to understand abstraction? If so, would they be able to understand God from Jesus?

Kland, elsewhere you said you think I lack the ability to grasp abstract logic. Let's test your theory. Give me an example of Jesus revealing the character of God that you believe relies on abstract logic. Explain how you think it reveals God. I will respond accordingly. Then we can analyze the outcome and draw conclusions.

Teresa, your reply above is too abstract. I'm not sure what you're talking about. What you mind spelling it out more concretely?

kland, that's a good point. I'm thinking about how Jesus Christ was able to meet people regardless of where they were (i.e. their paradigm and how they thought). Perhaps we could consider some of the different techniques Jesus Christ used and apply that to a study of Himself.

The sort of thing I had in mind originally was considering different incidents in Jesus' life, and discovering things about God's character from that. I threw this question out in Sabbath school class (this is from the lesson, which was talking about WWJD - "What Would Jesus Do?") and got some interesting responses. One of them was the incident about the Widow's mite. How Jesus commended her act, saying that she gave more than the others. Another was how Jesus was concerned about the thief on the cross, even as He was suffering.

These are just incidents in general. We could consider specific incidents which are related to the question of violence and how one should treat one's enemies. For example, we could consider how Jesus treated His enemies. When He was urged to destroy the Samaritans, for example, how did He respond?

so, you going to start a thread? id like in on it. but i think heavy prayer is needed to keep that on track, the enemy would love to derail it every chance he could. anything that would help us to understand God and become more like him he hates with a hatred we barely comprehend.

but im not saying anything everyone doesnt already know.

Done!

Your assumption is too far fetched to make your point. That is, the idea Dr. Seuss wrote everything I need to know about butterflies is audacious. He only wrote silly books for children. I am an adult. Let’s say I’m seeking a doctorate degree in butterflies. Is it true that Dr. Seuss wrote everything I need to know or can know about butterflies?

Let’s try again. In the context of disputing the claims of pantheism (the subject of 8T Section Five), how would I convey the idea that, due to our inadequate mental ability to fully comprehend God, the Bible only reveals those things we need to know or can know about God? (Note – I’m not saying this is what she was trying to convey, just asking how it could be conveyed).

From Section Five: 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} The whole Bible is a revelation of the glory of God in Christ. Received, believed, obeyed, it is the great instrumentality in the transformation of character. And it is the only sure means of intellectual culture. {8T 319.1}


You wrote, “I agree that ‘needs to know’ does not necessarily imply everything there is to know.” I agree. That’s the main point I’ve been trying to get across. And, I also agree that the person possessed of normal abilities (not mentally handicapped) has what it takes to understand everything that needs to be known of God. Again, “can know” is referring to one’s mental ability to comprehend what has been revealed.


Above you wrote, “I agree that ‘needs to know’ does not necessarily imply everything there is to know.” And I wrote above, “However, it is also evident that she did not say Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God.” It sounds like we’re saying the same thing.


I agree. “Revealed” includes what He taught. And He said He was in the future going to employ the “withdraw and permit” principle of allowing death and destruction to happen. He will also command holy angels to pour out the seven last plagues. These are attributes of God Jesus revealed in the OT.


It has yet to be seen if anyone you named can summarize your position, in particular why you think Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. Nor does the author of the book you linked explain it, at least I didn't see it.


Please point out where the author addressed these kinds of cases, namely, where Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death.

You wrote, “I think your understanding of the cross is way off.” What do I believe about the cross that you think is way off? Are you referring to the “judicial punishment” aspect of it: “He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity and becomes sin itself for man.” (SR 225) “God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin.” (MB 114)

You wrote, “The story of the father/hunter and his son was an attempt [at building a bridge to understanding why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death]. But this story doesn't make sense to you.” Sure it makes sense to me. It’s a very good analogy. It explains why God risks being misunderstood. I just don’t think it explains why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. He wasn’t taking a risk. He was commanding them to do what the law demands and requires. “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Capital punishment is the penalty required by law. "In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." (Con 21) “But those who have not, through repentance and faith, secured pardon, must receive the penalty of transgression—‘the wages of sin.’ They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, ‘according to their works,’ but finally ending in the second death.” (GC 544) “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished ‘according to their deeds.’" (GC 673) She goes on to say:


“What did God command Moses to do with those who were guilty of adultery? They should be stoned to death. Does the punishment end there? No, they are to die the second death. The stoning system has been done away, but the penalty for transgressing God's law is not done away. If the transgressor does not heartily repent, he will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. {TSB 131.3}

mm, you already posted that here #117108 on this thread. youre doing that in a couple of other threads also.

Do you remember kland's comment regarding you and abstraction? It's comments like this that made him think in the terms he expressed.

"Dr. Seuss" doesn't matter. I could have said "Dr. X". This is where abstraction comes in. I was expecting that you would grasp the principle I was illustrating, not that you would get hung up on Dr. Seuss. "Dr. Seuss" is simply the name of a person. It doesn't matter what the name of the person is. It the concept of a person that is being expressed, a person who knows all there is to know about butterflies.

And even this wasn't the point. The point was to illustrate a point of language, what "All that can be known by man about X was revealed by Y" where X is a subject and Y is a person.

However, it's possible your mind doesn't work this way. Not all minds work alike.

Do you understand the point here? Or is this way of thinking something uncomfortable or difficult for you to do?

Easy. You would just say what you said.





I'm assuming you have some point in mind. What is it please?



I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

EGW's point when she wrote that all we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ in His humanity is really simple. Even a child can understand it. I don't understand how this is something being posted about for so long and so many posts. It's a very simply concept.



No, MM, these are two very different things. The concept she expressed is "All that man needs to know of X, or can know of X, was made known by Y." My point is that what man needs to know of X need not be exactly what man can know of X. What man needs to know of X is a subset of what man can know of X.

Do you understand this?

What you said is that "It is evident that she did not say that all that man can know of X was made known by Y." This is not my point.

Do you understand this?

In addition, what you wrote disagrees with what Ellen White said, which is "all that man can know of X was made known by Y."

You are saying it's evident that what Ellen White said is not the case. I don't know how else to understand what you wrote.

(More later)

and if it is difficult brother mm, that is ok. i have serious limitations in some areas that i am very well aware of, others that i am learning of (even at 58).

when we come from a very critical background, not saying you have, but many have, we can feel we're being criticized when our limitations are being pointed out. but all of us have limitations in some area or another.

Yes, and the SOP tells us that what He taught, He lived.



Why do you insist on using this phrase? Why not use, "He taught that people can cause God's protection to be removed?"



What does this have to do with Jesus Christ while here in the flesh? MM, you're going off track.



I told you kland could summarize it.



Ok. You didn't see from the father story either. As I pointed out, this is a more difficult subject than the cross or the judgment.

According to the SOP, all truths cluster around the truth of the cross. The cross teaches us that there is no limit to the ends the devil will go to use force and violence to promote his agenda, and no limit to the sacrifice that love will make to avoid resorting to these tactics.

I suggest considering the cross, and asking, "What are the principles I see at work here?" and see how they apply.



This brings to mind the same point kland made about abstraction. This is an abstraction, MM. If you understand abstraction, you should be able to figure this out for yourself. If you don't, then I'll have to try some other way to try to communicate with you.



I wrote the following:



I realize saying, "And I think your understanding of the cross is way off." is a bit strong, which is why I followed it immediately with, "I'm not saying mine is perfect, far from it, and I would expect that I can learn from insights you have on the subject." Please include this mitigating sentence with the other one if you quote it again.

Regarding where I think your understanding of the cross is off is in that you see that God punishes those who act contrary to His will by causing them to suffer and die, and the cross is a means to escape this punishment. I actually agree that the cross is a way to escape punishment, but we disagree with what the punishment consists of, and hence, how the cross creates an escape.

I believe the punishment is "the full results of sin." Sin causes those who give way to it to form characters so out of harmony with God that His mere presence is a consuming fire. The escape from this punishment is to not give way to sin, and the cross is a way, the way, to do that.

Your belief is that the punishment is due to a judicial decree, and the cross is a way to avoid that punishment because God agrees to life the judicial sentence against those who accept Christ. I think this view makes both the punishment and the cure arbitrary.

I believe our same disagreement applies to these other areas of discussion. You see that as God will cause the wicked to suffer and die in the future, that He did the same thing in the past. That's consistent, I recognize, but I think if you could saw the punishment of the wicked as due to their own choice in the future, it might open the way to seeing this as having been the case in the past. However, given your view of what will happen in the future, I'm not seeing the point in discussing the past.



It does.



This is how you see it. I understand that. However, the author of the analogy doesn't see it that way. If you try to understand the story holding on to this idea, of course you won't understand it. You can't put new wine into old wineskins.



You're saying you view the cross as capital punishment? Obviously it was capital punishment for the Romans, but it looks like you believe it was a form of divine capital punishment? God executed His Son so He could pardon us? Is this your idea?



This all fits perfectly with what I've been sharing. The only way to be freed from sin is by repentance and faith. The inevitable result of sin is death, so one must be freed from it. The punishment the wicked suffer is due to the guilt of sin, and the mental anguish that causes. When the truth is revealed to them, in such a way that they see all, of course they suffer. And it makes sense that they suffer in proportion to their sin, and light they've had, as the more sin there is, and the more light, the more guilt.




It's too much to comment on all of these. I think what I have said above covers what was said in these quotes as well.

Tom, I was getting ready to type but read further and saw you beat me to it! This is exactly what I was meaning.

MM, is my theory confirmed? But, is it possible to ask someone who I think cannot grasp abstract things, if he agrees that he did not grasp an abstract example. I could give an example to demonstrate what this would be like, but I'm sure you would take offense like with my previous examples and Tom's Dr. Seuss'.


I've been reading this most interesting book by Oliver Sacks. In it he made a statement about the inability to abstract:

their world is vivid, intense, detailed, yet simple, precisely because it is concrete: neither complicated, diluted, nor unified, by abstraction.

In the book, he also gave examples of those who only had abstraction, devoid of concreteness. I can only understand the way to understand God from Jesus requires abstraction. I cannot think in a different way nor understand why anyone else can't think that way. However, where does that leave those who cannot think abstractly, or have varying degrees difficulty? I can't believe Ellen White made such a statement, which appears to require abstraction, leaving some people without an understanding of God.

Dr. Sacks gave examples of the concrete people finding meaning and purpose when given concrete situations. When giving them a bunch of tests designed to show their limitations or forced into certain environments, they became frustrated, rude, crude, irritating and no one wanted to be around them. But, when allowed to excel at what they were able to, they became "whole" and the same others found them to be dignified, decent, respected, and valued. Many were able to function with song, worship, and drama.

Obviously, as you and others have shown post after post (I'm reminded of the hunter story which completely explained things to me!), trying to get MM to understand abstraction has not worked and has frustrated all of us. Sacks' words of "vivid, intense, detailed" could have a possibility. How can we reach those unable to abstract Jesus onto God? After learning OO, something seemed to click and opened a whole new world (but not "new", just bigger and with support) to me. I also felt a disconnect with others not of that world. I am now starting to see an explanation in differences in thinking patterns where one type cannot understand the other type. (I'm reminded of a Star Trek show)

I am not able to fathom how to even go about explaining God and Jesus without abstraction. I cannot understand why anyone couldn't understand it. I don't know about you, but perhaps Teresa hinting at not fully at an abstract level, could come up with a concrete way of explaining how Jesus fully represented God.

It's a courtesy. Instead of asking Tom to go back and find it, I am simply reposting it for his convenience. Hope you don't mind.

I am perfectly okay with you using illustrations to make a point. But please work to make sure it makes the point. I’m not concerned about Kland. He rarely posts anything that appeals to me, that motivates me to respond.

The idea that there is such “a person who knows all there is to know about butterflies” is too far fetched to make your point. No one has written a book that contains everything there is to know about butterflies. The illustration doesn’t work. It’s not adequate to make your point.

"All that can be known by man about X was revealed by Y, where X is a subject and Y is a person.” I see no need to invent a formula. The quote in question is too clear to require abstract formulas. “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” There is nothing abstract about this statement.

Ellen White elaborates on this point in the following passages:


In the passages quoted above Ellen White makes it clear that Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God. Do you agree?

Not really. We could change it to something more esoteric, like Abelian Algebra, or Squash and the Olympics, and the illustration would work fine.



MM, it's hard to conceive of why you're picking on these things. They're not material to the point.



It's not a formula. It's a statement, with variables to stand in for the non-essential elements so you wouldn't become distracted by them. You keep focusing on non-essential elements, rather than the point.



It's not an abstract formula, MM.



MM, it doesn't appear to me that you grasped the point.

Let's try again. We'll change the subject to something else, say, squash and The Olympic Games. "All that one needs to know about squash and the Olympics was revealed by N. Ramachandran ." "All that one can know about squash and The Olympic Games was revealed by N. Ramachandran." The former is a subset of the latter. Why? Because only things which can be known about squash and The Olympic Games could possibly be things one needs to know about the subject. Once can't need to know things which can't be known. Is this point clear?

(N. Ramachandran is the president of the World Squash Federation, and it is quite conceivable that he knows all there is to know about Squash and the Olympics).



She said, "All that man needs to know and can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son, the Great Teacher." You're asking me if I agree this means that Jesus didn't do what she said He did? If so, no, I don't agree with what you're suggesting. I think she was correct, that Jesus Christ did reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God in His life and character.

If you're asking something else, I don't know what it is. To clarify what I've been saying, it is what she said, that all that one can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ in his humanity.

She doesn’t limit our knowledge of God to Jesus’ revelation of God while here in the flesh. In the same section she wrote, “The whole Bible is a revelation of the glory of God in Christ.” Elsewhere she wrote, “God cannot be understood by men. His ways and works are past finding out. In regard to the revelations that He has made of Himself in His Word, we may talk, but other than this, let us say of Him, Thou art God, and Thy ways are past finding out.” You seem to be saying she is limiting it to Jesus’ earthly revelation. I disagree.


You wrote, “I agree that ‘needs to know’ does not necessarily imply everything there is to know.” I agree. That’s all I’m saying about the phrase “needs to know”. However, you seem to go on and say “can know” has nothing to do with one’s ability to comprehend God. Please clarify this point.


“What man needs to know of X is a subset of what man can know of X. Do you understand this?” Yes, I understand what you’re saying, and I agree. We can learn things about God that we don’t need to know. The question is - What do we need to know about God and why? And, what can we learn about God and how?

Ellen White wrote, “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” She expresses the same idea elsewhere in the following manner: “All that man needs to know and can know of God has been revealed [1] in His Word and [2] in the life of His Son, the great Teacher.” This concept is couched in the context of our inability at this time to comprehend everything there is to know about God. And, for this very reason, God has not revealed everything there is to know about Himself.

To be clear, this means Jesus did not reveal, either in His actions or in His teachings, everything there is to know about God. Instead, He only revealed what we need to know, which also happens to be what we are capable of knowing. In other words, we are capable of comprehending everything God has revealed about Himself in the Bible, but there are tons of things He has not revealed in the Bible because we either don’t need to know or are incapable of comprehending at this time.

Again, here is the larger context of this concept:


“There is a knowledge of God and of Christ which all who are saved must have.” This is the knowledge she was referring to when she wrote, “All that man needs to know and can know of God. . .” She is talking about the knowledge necessary to experience salvation.

I’m glad to learn we agree that what Jesus experienced on our behalf on the cross provides our only means of escaping the death penalty. However, please keep in mind that that’s not all there is to it. Two goats were required to make atonement on the day of atonement.

No, I’m not implying Satan’s punishment and death will add to what Jesus wrought out for us on the cross. Jesus became the lawful owner of our sin and second death when drained the cup of woe and wrath on our behalf on the cross. Satan, however, will die our second death with our sins in the lake of fire at the end of time. Not until then will the full penalty of the law be visited and justice satisfied. Ellen White put it this way:

“In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. {GC 673.1}

In the typical service the high priest, having made the atonement for Israel, came forth and blessed the congregation. So Christ, at the close of His work as mediator, will appear, "without sin unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28), to bless His waiting people with eternal life. As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited" (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil. {GC 485.3}


You have yet to explain how or why it does.


You are the author of the humane hunter analogy, right?


No! We both agree that Jesus conquered the second death on the cross. Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered our sin and second death on the cross. It is Satan who will be punished and die our second death with our sins in the lake of fire. He “will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked.”


You wrote, “The only way to be freed from sin is by repentance and faith.” Can you back this up with inspired statements? That is, where does it say repentance and faith atones for our past sins? Law and justice demand death for sin – not faith and repentance!

You also wrote, “When the truth is revealed to them, in such a way that they see all, of course they suffer.” Again, can you back this up with inspired statements? That is, where does it say the wicked will suffer emotional anguish when they revisit their sins in judgment? Nowhere in the following description is such a thing said:


Instead of succumbing to emotional anguish, they turn upon one another in fits of rage. “Their rage is kindled against Satan and those who have been his agents in deception, and with the fury of demons they turn upon them.” In the midst of this mayhem, God will rain down fire from above and raise up fire from below. The earth will become a lake of fire. In this environment, after judgment has been executed, the wicked will suffer pain and agony in duration and in proportion to their sinfulness. Ellen White put it this way:

Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10. The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men--"the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion." Isaiah 34:8. {GC 672.2}

The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They "shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. {GC 673.1}

What she said was that all the we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (in His humanity, from the context). This doesn't mean we can't learn things from other sources, but the things we learn from other sources can be found in the life and character of Jesus Christ, in His humanity.



I'm just saying what she said. All we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (in His humanity, from the context).



That's just a part of the picture. If you read the whole article I quoted from, you will see that she speaks of a host of subjects, including spiritualism, pantheism, and other things.

It's easier to understand things, IMO, if one keeps in mind the big picture. The big picture is the Great Controversy. Satan desired to exalt himself, and to win the homage of God's creatures, He resorted to deception, misrepresenting God's character. This is how he deceived men and angels. To counteract this deception, God sent His Son.

You'll notice that in the very next after the one I keep quoting, she quotes John 1:18, which says that no one has seen God at any time, but His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God is really like (CEV). This is the context of which she is speaking. What is God like? That's the question to which the answer is, "All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son."

This isn't referring to certain facts, like facts necessary to be saved, but to knowing God personally, to know His character. You'll notice that in the article you quoted from she quoted from John 17:4, which speaks of how knowing God is life eternal. This is the same concept. We know God through Jesus Christ's revelation of His character.

Why are you talking about this?



It's been explained, but not understood. No, I wasn't the author of the father hunter analogy.



If you believe that:

a.Capital Punishment is the penalty for sin.
b.Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sin.

then it follows you believe that

c.Jesus Christ was capitally punished.



Sure, but I don't see the need to. John 3:16 comes to mind.



What did I write, MM? ("The only way ...")



In DA, "Calvary", EGW says that Christ experienced the mental anguish the wicked will suffer then mercy no longer pleads for the human race, so that's one place. DA 108 is another, where she talks about Christ as the revealer of God's character, and how the wicked could not abide His presence.



Surely all of this will be overwhelming to anyone who doesn't have faith in Christ.

The MB passage I quoted several times says that if we had to bear our guilt, it would crush us. That's another one (in the judgment, the wicked will have to bear their own guilt).

Christ spoke of how their would be weeping and gnashing of teeth in the judgment. This is speaking of the mental anguish the wicked will suffer.

Regarding the GC 673 statements, this isn't all she wrote on the subject. She also wrote DA 674, and GC 541-543, and DA 107,108, to name three other places that speak to this. I've yet to see any explanation on your part that takes into account these other passages.

From my perspective, you're understanding of the whole process, from beginning to end, is arbitrary, or imposed (as opposed to natural consequence). You don't see that sin causes death, so you perceive that God assigns an imposed penalty to those who sin. This arbitrary, or imposed, penalty can be removed by an equally arbitrary process which involves Christ's death and believing in Him. If a person refuses to partake of the process then God, who has stayed the natural consequence of choosing sin (which would be suffering in proportion to their sin and death) instead imposes an arbitrary punishment. A part of the process also involves an imposed punishment upon Satan.

As opposed to this, what I see is that the inevitable result of sin is death. People who sin suffer and die, as a natural consequence, not due to something arbitrary God does to them to make them feel pain and be killed. Christ didn't suffer an imposed punishment, but took our sin upon Him, and suffered because of our sins. That was a natural consequence as well.

When people perceive the love of God revealed from the cross, they are "brought back to God," freed from sin, and receive eternal life. The law is written in their heart, and they become new creatures, forgiven and pardoned by God.

In the judgment, the wicked suffer in proportion to their sin, because sin and guilt are what cause the suffering and death.

the reward for the righteous is eternal life.

the reward for the lost is eternal death.

no problem at all. i just didnt understand why you reposted them 1 or 2 posts apart was all. would you like me to show you what i mean?

See my answer below.


Yes, you have explained that God decided, against His ideal, to direct the COI in their desire to kill people. Is that your final answer? If so, do you think He directed them in violating His law? Does God ever compromise with sin or command sinners to sin?


This is why I made the point I did above. Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered capital punishment on the cross. But that isn't all there is to it. As you know, atonement was not completed at the cross. Satan must also suffer and die with our sins for God to fully satisfy the demands of law and justice. She makes this clear in the following passages:


Atonement is not complete until Satan suffers and dies with our sins and second death.


Why do you think John 3:16 supports your idea that faith and repentance is the only way to be freed from sin? What about satisfying the death demands of law and justice for past sins?


Why do you think the GC quotes I posted previously say nothing at all about the wicked experiencing the kind of shame and guilt you're talking about? Instead of the results of judgment causing them to suffer and die an emotional death, she describes them turning upon one another in fits of rage.

I have written a lot about "our God is a consuming fire" as it relates to the final judgment and eradication of sin and sinners. Apparently, though, I haven't been clear enough to prevent you from thinking I have yet to include it in my explanations. I believe "God is light." (1 John 1:5) He radiates light. God glows. The light of God causes sinful flesh to burn up. That's why "this corruptible must put on incorruption" before we can be in the presence of God without burning up.

"To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire. If you choose sin, and refuse to separate from it, the presence of God, which consumes sin, must consume you." (MB 62) It's almost as if the death of sinners is collateral damage. This refutes the idea that the "presence of God" at judgment causes sinners to suffer and die an agonizing emotional death. Since it is the "presence of God" that consumes sin, and since sin cannot experience emotional anguish, it is obvious it's not referring to sinners experiencing emotional anguish.


Again, there is nothing arbitrary about God keeping His promise to punish transgressors. Neither sin nor guilt will punish sinners. The credit will belong to God alone for punishing and destroying sinners. Here's how Ellen White put it:


She says nothing about sin or guilt putting down rebellion. Instead, she plainly says God will employ His power and authority to punish and destroy sinners. She labels it - "retributive justice".

I would prefer it if you would address the posts addressed to you. Also, I would prefer it if you would leave it up to the Moderators to oversee the threads on this forum.

He allowed divorce because the hardness of people's hearts. He allowed polygamy. He allowed them to take things into their own hands and kill people, even though He never gave them weapons to do so. (Have you considered this?)



This doesn't have any thing to do with my point, which is that if you believe that:

a. Capital Punishment is the penalty for sin.
b. Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sin.

then it follows you believe that

c. Jesus Christ was capitally punished.

Regarding the atonement, Sister White refers to it as the "at-one-ment." Thinking of it in these terms, I think, helps to understand the process immensely. It's not a bunch of unrelated, unexplicable acts or things (e.g. "I don't know why God wanted this done, but He must have had a good reason.") thrown in a basket, but a coherent process which is predicated on the concept that there has been a separation due to misrepresentations regarding God and the principles of His government, and a necessary restoration based on a revelation of the truth which dispels the misrepresentations.



I'll quote from the SOP to explain this:



I think this explains it clearly. If you don't see this, I'll go through the quote point by point to explain how it makes the point that repentance and faith sets us free from sin.



I think Lucifer's case makes clear that the way you are thinking of this can't be correct.



For the same reason Revelation doesn't. However, the principles involved are spoken of in other places in Scripture, principally by Jesus, many examples of which are in the book of John!



This doesn't have anything to do with DA 764, and does violence to the text of DA 107, 108, from where you're quoting:



This doesn't have anything to do with radiating light, at least not in the sense you're speaking of it.



This is similar to your claim that God didn't use force of violence. You have a view of things which indicates you believe God did use force and violence, according to how the dictionary defines these words. Similarly if one considers the definition of the word "arbitrary," it exactly corresponds to what you are describing. But you don't like these words, so you reject them. But you keep the ideas the words are describing.



It sounds like your argument is that God is responsible for the destruction of sinners, that sin is basically innocuous, and God kills those who practice it. If God simply left those who sin alone, they'd be fine, because there's nothing inherently destructive about it.

I disagree with this idea, and I think DA 764 makes it abundantly clear that this this idea is incorrect. She points out that if God had *left* Satan to reap the full results of his sin, he would have perished, but God couldn't do this because it was not understood that the inevitable result of sin is death. Therefore onlookers would have attributed the destruction of the wicked to an arbitrary act of power on God's part as opposed to His allowing the wicked to "receive the results of their choice."

It is sin which is responsible for the destruction of sinners, which occurs when they "receive the results of their choice."

If you continue a bit further from the quote from GC 541 you will see that she explains that the exclusion from heaven of the wicked is "voluntary with themselves," that the wicked would long to flee from heaven. She also explains that the principles of kindness are present in the judgment, as well as the principle of loving one's enemy.

but this is a discussion board, sweetie.

True. But there are times when I do not appreciate your comments. Mostly because they come across as disapproving.

How would God have given them weapons if He wanted to? Did He drown the Egyptians in the Red Sea and then direct the COI to gather up the weapons?

Also, you didn’t answer my question. Did God direct them in violating His law by teaching them how to get divorced, to practice polygamy, and to slaughter their enemies in combat?


Yes, it is true that Jesus experienced corporal punishment for our sins on the cross. Remember, though, that capital punishment includes death. Consequently, the fact Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered our second death, rather than succumbing to it, is evidence He is our Substitute and Savior. As such, is it accurate to conclude, “Jesus Christ was capitally punished”? I don't think so.


Yes, I believe atonement includes empowering sinners to love and obey God. Please keep this in mind as we pursue other important aspects of atonement.


“. . . so the Son of man has been lifted up . . .” Why was it necessary for Jesus to suffer and die as though He committed every sin ever committed? Was it merely to motivate sinners to love and obey God? Or, does it also involve honoring the law by satisfying its just and loving demands, namely, that death must happen in consequence of sin? Ellen White wrote:

Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2} But it was not merely to accomplish the redemption of man that Christ came to the earth to suffer and to die. He came to "magnify the law" and to "make it honorable." {GC 503.1}


Assuming God was willing to pardon Lucifer on condition of submission and repentance, without also requiring the death of Jesus, as if creature merit is sufficient to atone for sin, and then postulating it proves Jesus didn’t have to suffer and die to satisfy the demands of law and justice is an unwarranted conclusion. Again, nowhere does it say in the Bible or the SOP that God was willing to pardon A&E without requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. Why do you think this is so? Ellen White also wrote the following about it:

Good angels wept to hear the words of Satan and his exulting boasts. God declared that the rebellious should remain in heaven no longer. Their high and happy state had been held upon condition of obedience to the law which God had given to govern the high order of intelligences. But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law. {SR 18.2} [You seem to be saying that after Satan sinned a provision existed to save him, namely, pardon on condition of repentance and submission.]

Cain and Abel represent two classes that will exist in the world till the close of time. One class avail themselves of the appointed sacrifice for sin; the other venture to depend upon their own merits; theirs is a sacrifice without the virtue of divine mediation, and thus it is not able to bring man into favor with God. It is only through the merits of Jesus that our transgressions can be pardoned. Those who feel no need of the blood of Christ, who feel that without divine grace they can by their own works secure the approval of God, are making the same mistake as did Cain. If they do not accept the cleansing blood, they are under condemnation. There is no other provision made whereby they can be released from the thralldom of sin. {PP 72.5}


Weeping and gnashing of teeth can happen for reasons other than the one you are suggesting. Are you suggesting the wicked will experience the same kind of soul anguish Jesus did and for the same reasons?


Here’s the background of my comment:


In response to this, you wrote, “Regarding the GC 673 statements, this isn't all she wrote on the subject. She also wrote DA [764], and GC 541-543, and DA 107,108, to name three other places that speak to this. I've yet to see any explanation on your part that takes into account these other passages.”

Here’s what DA 764 says about it: “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.”

Here’s what GC 541-543 says about it: “A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. . . It is in mercy to the universe that God will finally destroy the rejecters of His grace.”

Here’s what DA 107-108 says about it: “In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them.”

Please note that she attributes their death to three different things – 1) His very presence, 2) the glory of God, and 3) the Spirit of God. Elsewhere she says, 4) “The glory of His countenance, which to the righteous is life, will be to the wicked a consuming fire.” (DA 600) The following passages provide an insight into the physical effect of being exposed to the light that God radiates:


Again, you wrote, "This doesn't have anything to do with DA 764, and does violence to the text of DA 107, 108 . . ." So, as you can see, what I wrote was consistent with the passages you referenced.

Remember, we were talking about the effect of the light of God on the wicked during judgment at the end of time (not the effect Christ's presence on sinners while He was here in the flesh - "His very presence would make manifest to men their sin.") Ellen White speaks of something similar in the following passage: "As soon as the books of record are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon the wicked, they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed." {GC 666.2}


I realize this is how you view it. However, there are other ways to see it. BTW, why do you think it isn’t forceful or violent when God withdraws His protection and permits infants to be killed? You seem to think God is innocent of any culpability.


Sin is not what causes people to suffer and die at the end of time. That is plain to me. God says, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” I realize you believe God metes out vengeance by being kind to the wicked. However, it is clear to me that God will execute justice by punishing and destroying the wicked in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. You attempt to word this truth in such a way as to make it sound harsh and ludicrous, but the truth speaks for itself.

it would be nice, very nice, if we each one could feel what the other feels when reading our words.

we all might make more of a conscious effort in how we write.

i have come across more and more sdas who saw the "punishment" of the lost, as you present it, as a variation of the "eternal torture in hell" concept.

i myself have understood it as such.

at least uriah smith, in refuting the eternal torment in hell, believed that conviction was what would torture the lost on that horrible day when we lose, possibly, at least some of our loved ones.

conviction does bring suffering. i have felt it when convicted of something wrong ive done, when ive felt what the other person felt. when ive realized how horrible it was.

we have all been convicted that way at least once or twice in our walk with the Lord, havent we?

In what sense do you see what I have presented as a variation of eternal torment in hell?

Also, Ellen White wrote:

The forbearance that God has exercised toward the wicked, emboldens men in transgression; but their punishment will be none the less certain and terrible for being long delayed. . . . While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some He must cut off those who become hardened in sin. . . . And the very fact of His reluctance to execute justice testifies to the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments and to the severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor. But while inflicting judgment, God remembered mercy. {CC 155}

To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Eze. 33:11. . . . Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Ex. 34:6, 7; Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice. The nation with which He bears long, and which He will not smite until it has filled up the measure of its iniquity in God's account, will finally drink the cup of wrath unmixed with mercy. {FLB 338.5}

After God has done all that could be done to save men, if they still show by their lives that they slight offered mercy, death will be their portion; and it will be a dreadful death, for they will have to feel the agony that Christ felt upon the cross. They will then realize what they have lost--eternal life and the immortal inheritance. {FLB 338.6}

"Affiliated to the dangers already named is the danger of underestimating the justice of God. The tendency of the modern pulpit is to strain out the divine justice from the divine benevolence, to sink benevolence into a sentiment rather than exalt it into a principle. The new theological prism puts asunder what God has joined together. Is the divine law a good or an evil? It is a good. Then justice is good; for it is a disposition to execute the law. {GC 465.3}

The Lord still works in a similar manner to glorify His name by bringing men to acknowledge His justice. When those who profess to love Him complain of His providence, despise His promises, and, yielding to temptation, unite with evil angels to defeat the purposes of God, the Lord often so overrules circumstances as to bring these persons where, though they may have no real repentance, they will be convinced of their sin and will be constrained to acknowledge the wickedness of their course and the justice and goodness of God in His dealings with them. {PP 393.1}

It is thus that God sets counteragencies at work to make manifest the works of darkness. And though the spirit which prompted to the evil course is not radically changed, confessions are made that vindicate the honor of God and justify His faithful reprovers, who have been opposed and misrepresented. Thus it will be when the wrath of God shall be finally poured out. When "the Lord cometh with ten thousand of His saints, to execute judgment upon all," He will also "convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds." Jude 14, 15. Every sinner will be brought to see and acknowledge the justice of his condemnation. {PP 393.1}

Jesus and the angels looked upon them in anger. Said the angel, Their sins and pride have reached unto heaven. Their portion is prepared. Justice and judgment have slumbered long, but will soon awake. Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the Lord. The fearful threatenings of the third angel are to be realized, and they will drink the wrath of God. {1SG 190.1}

"Mighty to save," through the sacrifice of redemption, He was therefore strong to execute justice upon them that despised God's mercy. And the tokens of His humiliation are His highest honor; through the eternal ages the wounds of Calvary will show forth His praise and declare His power. {GC 674.2}

to which i replied:

I don't understand your comment. Are you merely saying Tom is one of the "more and more sdas" you have come across who see the view of justice and judgment I have been presenting as a variation of eternal torment in hell? If so, what do you believe? Are you leaning in Tom's direction? That is, are you beginning to believe God will execute His retributive justice and judgment on sinners by withdrawing His protection and allowing them to experience the undiluted power of their accumulated guilt and shame, and that it is sin, not God, that will punish and destroy them in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness?

PS - Also, are you of the opinion God has never caused pain, that He merely withdraws His protection and allows pain to happen?

I think this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to comment. The title of this thread is a bit misleading, it seems to me, or rather the question. The context of the discussion that led to this thread was whether or not God caused people to have excruciating pain as a means to get His way or to punish people. I never made any statement so general as to say that God never causes pain.

For example, when the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, is there pain involved? One could certainly interpret things this way. To my mind, this would be like the Doctor who causes pain to his patient in order to heal him.

If He wanted to do so miraculously, He could have created them, and given them to the COI. Another way would be to direct them in creating their own weapons.



No.



Is it against His law to do these things?



So it is your view that in order to "pay the penalty" it was necessary for Christ to "taste" death, but He didn't actually have to die? How does "tasting" death satisfy the legal requirement that the sinner must die?



If atonement is "at-one-ment," then to say the "other important aspects" must be related to this (i.e., to "at-one-ment"; which is, being made at one).



You asked why I thought that one is freed from sin by faith and repentance. I explained why. What do these questions have to do with that?

Regarding your questions, they have false assumptions, from my standpoint. Enough so that I think you should quote something I've actually said and ask me about that. I'll comment on one point, however, and that is that you appear to believe that the just and loving demands of the law are a separate issue. If it were a separate issue, then it should have applied to Lucifer, and God should not have been able to pardon him nor allow him back to his original post simply on the basis of repentance and submission.



I believe you're making false assumptions here. First of all, you say "assuming God was willing." We don't need to "assume" this, as we've been flat out told this was the case. Secondly "as if creature merit is sufficient to atone for sin" is assuming that the very point we're discussing is true. Rather than assuming this is true, let's consider the evidence. God gave Lucifer a chance to confess his sin, and return to his post. Had he repented and submitted, he would have been pardoned. If the issue were one of having to pay for atonement, surely this wouldn't have been possible. Therefore the assumption is false. So rather than assuming the idea she's articulating is that Lucifer's repentance and submission would be an atonement for sin, consider another possibility that fits with the evidence, which is that this wasn't the issue that needed to be resolved. Lucifer needed to be reconciled to God. That was the issue. In order to be reconciled to God, it was necessary that he repent. In order for man, whose circumstances were different than Lucifer's, it was necessary for Christ to die. Why? The DA passage from page 762 I think it is, that I've quoted many times, explains why. Also the following comment by Fifield nails the issue on the head:





I'm suggesting the following:



Note this speaks of Christ feeling the anguish the wicked will feel.



MM, this whole thing seems circular. You for some reason believe that when it speaks of the glory of the Lord destroying the wicked this is primarily a physical thing, in spite of the fact that she has specifically identified God's glory as being His character, and the context of DA 108 bears this out (she speaks of Christ as the revealer of God's character in the sentence immediately following the statement that the light of His glory, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked.

Consider the following from DA 107, which you quoted:



You quoted this as giving insight to the light, as if this would show it's physical here, although the context elsewhere shows it's not. But it's not physical here either. The wicked are not zapped by Christ, like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it is the revelation of His character which has led to their downfall. This can be seen in a couple of ways.

1.The following is from GC 37:



This brings out that the principles in DA 107 are the same as in GC 35-37! The wicked destroy themselves, and how they do so is explained by the principles in GC 35-37 (which quotes the same 2 Thes. passage DA 107 quotes).

2.GC 657 says the following:



If they fall because of the mad strife of their passions, etc., then they don't fall because of physical light emanating from Christ.

However, if we understand this light to be the light of His glory, then everything fits together. Before the coming of Christ is to be a message of God's character:



This is the brightness of His glory which destroys the wicked! Earlier we see that, as Jerusalem of old, they destroy themselves. What caused the destruction of Jerusalem of old? The same thing which will cause the destruction of the wicked at Christ's coming: the revelation of God's character. When the light of God's character is rejected, the wicked are left to their "mad strife" and the control of Satan; they destroy themselves.

So we see the same principles at work in GC 35-37 as at the Second Coming of Christ.



The consistency I see is the rejection of similar principles in each of the passages.



Again, these are all referencing the same principles.



Clearly there are other ways to see this, since it is seen in other ways.



Why do you think I think this?



Since I've been saying all along that God is innocent of any culpability, I'm glad you at least recognize I "seem" to think this.

Please be careful, MM. I've not said that sin, not God, will "punish and destroy" sinners in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. I've pointed out, to you specifically, on a number of occasions that sin is not a sentient being. I would be more comfortable saying what the SOP says, which is that the wicked destroy themselves. True, it is because of sin that this happens, but to say that sin is punishing them, to my mind, makes it sound as if sin has a mind of its own. Those who reject God bring about their own suffering and death. They "destroy themselves." Or, to put it another way, God allows them to receive the results of their choice, to reap what they have sown, leaving them to perish, which is the inevitable result of sin.

yes.

but i dont mean to imply that it originated with you since you are not alone in this view.

it would appear the pioneers understood ellen whites statements in this regard differently than the "descendents" who no longer have her in person to converse with.

along the lines that my friends and children would know what my letters mean because they know and converse with me, but complete strangers would have to make assumptions many times about some point in them.

Ellen White has said in at least one place, "God's people must give to the world a representation of the character of God in Jesus Christ. The Christian churches are fast losing their knowledge of God. His character has been misunderstood and misinterpreted."

How would one misinterpret, misrepresent His character?

It was addressed to Teresa.


What about the "withdraw and permit" principle of punishment? Does God cause pain when He withdraws His protection and permits either nature or evil angels to cause death and destruction?

I agree. However, I see no connection between what the pioneers believed Ellen White meant and eternal torment in hell.

In light of the content of this thread, I submit the following:

But few realize the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor. But in the light of Bible history it is evident that God's goodness and His love engage Him to deal with sin as an evil fatal to the peace and happiness of the universe. {PP 420.2}

Korah would not have taken the course he did had he known that all the directions and reproofs communicated to Israel were from God. But he might have known this. God had given overwhelming evidence that He was leading Israel. But Korah and his companions rejected light until they became so blinded that the most striking manifestations of His power were not sufficient to convince them; they attributed them all to human or satanic agency. The same thing was done by the people, who the day after the destruction of Korah and his company came to Moses and Aaron, saying, "Ye have killed the people of the Lord." Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God's displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan, declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men. It was this act that sealed their doom. They had committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, a sin by which man's heart is effectually hardened against the influence of divine grace. "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man," said Christ, "it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him." Matthew 12:32. These words were spoken by our Saviour when the gracious works which He had performed through the power of God were attributed by the Jews to Beelzebub. It is through the agency of the Holy Spirit that God communicates with man; and those who deliberately reject this agency as satanic, have cut off the channel of communication between the soul and Heaven. {PP 404.4}

Tom, please answer my question. Otherwise I'll just keep asking it.

IMO you're not looking at this correctly, as evidenced by the way you insist on phrasing this, despite the numerous times I've pointed out what the SOP said (quoted again below) and requested you to not phrase things this way, unless you're referring to *your* view. If you have your view in mind, go ahead and use this phrasing, and I'll explain why I disagree with your view. If you're asking me about *my* view, then please don't use this way of putting things.



From the SOP:



so I understand you're asking if when the people did this, God caused them pain. No, God did nothing to cause them pain. As the SOP points out, they brought their own suffering upon themselves. The sentence right before this one says:



I don't see how it could say any more clearly that it wasn't God who was doing this to them.



I've stated in a number of places what *I* think, using *my* words. If you're going to ask me questions based on what *you* think, using *your* words, you're going to have to define them.

So if you'd like answer to your question, please answer mine.

So you are saying they misrepresent His character by saying:
-God is too good to punish
-they attributed (striking manifestations of His power) to human or satanic agency
-they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan
-It was this act that sealed their doom

But how does this fit in with, "The Christian churches are fast losing their knowledge of God". Meaning, I realize there may be some churches saying the above, but is that the majority? Am I correct in thinking she was referring to the majority of churches?

Not when they practice them in accordance with His laws. Do you agree?

how does that make sense, mm? divorce is a sin, unless...?

polygamy is a sin, unless....?

Teresa, it is never a sin to live in harmony with the laws of God.

no it is not a sin to live in harmony with the law of God, the 10c.

but polygamy, divorce, murder, etc is a sin no matter how many laws there are set in place to control, or regulate, it.

but that seems incomprehensible to you at the moment, while it is just as incomprehensible to others of us that your picture is true so it would probably be best to just let it go.

Okay.

I found this in 2SM, page 441-:
The human family have brought upon themselves diseases of various forms by their own wrong habits. They have not studied how to live healthfully, and their transgression of the laws of their being has produced a deplorable state of things. The people have seldom accredited their sufferings to the true cause--their own wrong course of action. They have indulged an intemperance in eating, and made a God of their appetite. In all their habits they have manifested a recklessness in regard to health and life; and when, as the result, sickness has come upon them they have made themselves believe that God was the author of it, when their own wrong course of action has brought the sure result. When in distress they send for the doctor, and trust their bodies in his hands, expecting that he will make them well. He deals out to them drugs, the nature of which they know nothing, and in their blind confidence they swallow anything that the doctor may choose to give. Thus powerful poisons are often administered which fetter nature in all her friendly efforts to recover the abuse the system has suffered, and the patient is hurried out of this life.
...
The patient grows worse, and poisonous drugs are more freely administered, until nature is overpowered in her efforts, and gives up the conflict, and the mother dies. She was drugged to death. Her system was poisoned beyond remedy. She was murdered. Neighbors and relatives marvel at the wonderful dealings of providence in thus removing a mother in the midst of her usefulness, at the period when her children need her care so much. They wrong our good and wise heavenly father when they cast back upon him this weight of human woe. Heaven wished that mother to live, and her untimely death dishonored God. The mother's wrong habits, and her inattention to the laws of her being, made her sick. And the doctor's fashionable poisons, introduced into the system, closed the period of her existence, and left a helpless, stricken, motherless flock.
The above is not always the result which follows the doctor's drugging. Sick people who take these drug-poisons do appear to get well. With some, there is sufficient life-force for nature to draw upon, to so far expel the poison from the system that the sick, having a period of rest, recover. But no credit should be allowed the drugs taken, for they only hindered nature in her efforts. All the credit should be ascribed to nature's restorative powers.
...
If the people would reason from cause to effect, and would follow the light which shines upon them, they would pursue a course which would insure health, and mortality would be far less. But the people are too willing to remain in inexcusable ignorance, and trust their bodies to the doctors, instead of having any special responsibility in the matter themselves.

It appears to me in this passage, Ellen White is saying:

• The patient misrepresents God by thinking He brings upon them sickness which they themselves have caused by their own choices.
• Neighbors and relatives misrepresent God by questioning why He would remove a mother from her children when they need her the most.
• Others misrepresent God by crediting drugs to healing some cases when really it is the sufficient life-force which was able to overcome the drugs.

I notice that she did not say the mother was given pain and killed because she didn't follow God's health laws, but that "Heaven wished that mother to live, and her untimely death dishonored God".

MM, how do you reconcile that with what you are trying to say? I'm guessing that you will say that sometimes we misrepresent God by saying he won't harm and destroy people and sometimes we misrepresent God by saying he will harm and destroy people.

Which seems to make no statement. Correct me if I am wrong.

Kland, nice quote. We are truly "fearfully and wonderfully made". Thank you, Jesus! But there is a limit beyond which we cannot continue to abuse our health and recover. However, there are times when God pities our stupidity and miraculously heals us, thereby neutralizing the normal natural cause and effect consequences. So again, thank you, Jesus! Now, let us make good of our good fortune and give up health destroying habits. If we don't, be sure our sins shall find us out - if not here then in judgment.

God will resurrect the wicked, judge them, and then punish them according to their sinfulness. Will He simply let them die again the way they did the first time? For example, will He simply let the cancer ridden smoker die a second time of lung cancer? Of course not! Why bother resurrecting them only to let them die again for the same reasons? It wouldn't accomplish anything useful. It certainly wouldn't teach unfallen beings something they are not already very familiar with. Nor would it add to their safety or security. So, what will cause them to die, and will it satisfy an unfulfilled need?

An interesting topic to consider if God would heal someone in spite of themselves and then raise them to destroy them or if they are not healed, but die, then He raises them to destroy them.

However, I was curious as to how we misrepresent God compared to: how the mother did, how her family did, how others credit drugs to the healing.

Looking over it again, maybe you are saying the patient misrepresents God by saying God was punishing them with disease, but we misrepresent Him by saying God doesn't punish the diseased sinner at the end?

Right. We misrepresent the truth about God when deny what He said about retributive justice and what He said about the final judgment.

But the bright picture of what Jerusalem might have been fades from the Saviour's sight. He realizes what she now is under the Roman yoke, bearing the frown of God, doomed to His retributive judgment. He takes up the broken thread of His lamentation: "But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." {DA 577.1}

Jesus knew the terrible retribution which would be visited upon the doomed city. He saw Jerusalem encompassed with armies, the besieged inhabitants driven to starvation and death, mothers feeding upon the dead bodies of their own children, and both parents and children snatching the last morsel of food from one another, natural affection being destroyed by the gnawing pangs of hunger. He saw that the stubbornness of the Jews, as evinced in their rejection of His salvation, would also lead them to refuse submission to the invading armies. He beheld Calvary, on which He was to be lifted up, set with crosses as thickly as forest trees. He saw the wretched inhabitants suffering torture on the rack and by crucifixion, the beautiful palaces destroyed, the temple in ruins, and of its massive walls not one stone left upon another, while the city was plowed like a field.

Well might the Saviour weep in agony in view of that fearful scene. {DA 577.2}

Jesus raised His hand,--that had so often blessed the sick and suffering,--and waving it toward the doomed city, in broken utterances of grief exclaimed: "If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!--"





Here the Saviour paused, and left unsaid what might have been the condition of Jerusalem had she accepted the help that God desired to give her,--the gift of His beloved Son.




If Jerusalem had known what it was her privilege to know, and had heeded the light which Heaven had sent her, she might have stood forth in the pride of prosperity, the queen of kingdoms, free in the strength of her God-given power. There would have been no armed soldiers standing at her gates, no Roman banners waving from her walls. The glorious destiny that might have blessed Jerusalem had she accepted her Redeemer rose before the Son of God. He saw that she might through Him have been healed of her grievous malady, liberated from bondage, and established as the mighty metropolis of the earth. From her walls the dove of peace would have gone forth to all nations. She would have been the world's diadem of glory. {DA 576.3}

Agreed! So what did God say? I believe He said that the wages of sin is death, and that the inevitable result of sin is death, meaning that sin causes death, and that those who sin will die, because of the lethal effects of sin. Otoh you believe that God arbitrarily, or artificially, kills them because, since they do not feel guilt or shame, God has to do this to kill them, as they have inoculated themselves against what would have been the results of sin in the beginning had God not intervened.

Now this is how I understand your view, to the best of my ability. If it's wrong in some respect, please correct it, and I'll try to reflect what you've said in further presentations of your view.

Now here's my question. Why do you think that your view of things presents a more positive view of God's character than the one I've presented?

Teresa, God executes His retributive justice and judgment in several different ways. One of those ways is reflected in the passages you posted above. "God will use His enemies as instruments to punish" the wicked. It would be adolescent, however, to assume this is the only method God employs to punish and destroy the wicked. For example, God has "employed" fire and water to punish the wicked. Ellen White wrote:

The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from Heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {3SG 82.2}

God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored. {LDE 242.3}

The way you are using the word “kill” implies God will murder them. But executing retributive justice and judgment is punishment – not murder. You believe the “lethal effects of sin” is emotional anguish ending in death, that it will cause the wicked to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness eventually ending in death. But the inspired record does not support this idea. Since the wicked are sin-hardened they are incapable of feeling guilt and shame, thus they are incapable of emotional anguish ending in death. You have yet to quote inspired sources that say the wicked will suffer emotional anguish ending in death.


Your view credits sin, not God, for punishing and destroying the wicked. The Universe will praise God, not sin, for ending the great controversy successfully. The following passages speak to your question:

In Noah's day philosophers declared that it was impossible for the world to be destroyed by water; so now there are men of science who endeavor to show that the world cannot be destroyed by fire--that this would be inconsistent with the laws of nature. But the God of nature, the Maker and Controller of her laws, can use the works of His hands to serve His own purpose. {PP 103.2}

Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor. But in the light of Bible history it is evident that God's goodness and His love engage Him to deal with sin as an evil fatal to the peace and happiness of the universe. {PP 420.2}

Very few realize the sinfulness of sin; they flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the offender. But the cases of Miriam, Aaron, David, and many others show that it is not a safe thing to sin against God in deed, in word, or even in thought. God is a being of infinite love and compassion, but He also declares Himself to be a "consuming fire, even a jealous God" (RH Aug. 14, 1900). {3BC 1166.2}

Satan himself, who was compelled to remain in the midst of the warring elements, feared for his own existence. . . He now uttered imprecations against God, charging Him with injustice and cruelty. . . Conscience was at last aroused to know that there is a God who ruleth in the heavens. . . So when God's judgments shall fall upon the earth before its deluge by fire, the impenitent will know just where and what their sin is--the despising of His holy law. Yet they will have no more true repentance than did the old-world sinners. {PP 99.3}

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. Who will say God will not do what He says He will do? {LDE 241}

But Korah and his companions rejected light until they became so blinded that the most striking manifestations of His power were not sufficient to convince them; they attributed them all to human or satanic agency. The same thing was done by the people, who the day after the destruction of Korah and his company came to Moses and Aaron, saying, "Ye have killed the people of the Lord." Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God's displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan, declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men. It was this act that sealed their doom. {PP 405}

PS - God doesn't cause pain. Instead, the result of what He does causes pain. Pain isn't the purpose of punishment - justice is!

Yes, Mike, and let me add one more quote which I also posted just now in the plagues thread (with Tom, every topic seems to center on similar themes).



Unless "the third angel" of the Three Angels' Messages is a double-agent (and I think it akin to blasphemy to suggest such of one of God's angels), God is the one behind the message. The message is also for our day and time.

It is clear from this quote, however, that God's judgments are not arbitrary--but rather those who receive them know wherein they have erred. Their sins were of a "heinous character" and they knew it. God also has given an opportunity to escape, but at some point it is too late.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No it doesn't. I would have used "murder" had I intended that meaning. I meant "kill."



I haven't spoken of murder. I've said that your view is that God has to kill the people who sinned, because by sinning they've caused themselves to be such that they wouldn't die if God simply allowed what was originally the inevitable result of sin -- death involving mental and emotional anguish -- to occur, because they no long feel guilt and shame. I've just been repeating your view, as I understand it.



This is close.



I believe the ideas I've shared are Scriptural.



It surely doesn't support this! I doubt anyone else would support your idea here, even though they, in general, agree with you in regards to the death of the wicked not being due to the effects of sin.



I've quoted several things. Two from "The Desire of Ages" and "Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing" come right to mind.



This is confused, again, in regards to speaking of sin as if it were a sentient being. I just explained, within the last day or two, why this assertion is incorrect. I don't understand why you're just repeating it. Did you not read what I wrote? Did you not understand it? Or did you just forget it?



Why write something like this? That the universe would praise sin is utter nonsense.



No they don't, and they can't. My question is a personal one to you, which can't be answered by quoting another. I'm asking *you* why *you* feel the view you are presenting is superior to the one I'm presenting, especially in relation to God's character. How do you feel God's acting the way you see Him act has Him being a superior Being than acting the way I'm suggesting He acts?

Just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, your idea is that God gives a message, and gives a warning that if they do not heed the message, then God will have terrible things done to them. This is correct? And they will have deserved this, because they knew they should have heeded the message. So it's "justice" for God to have terrible things done to them, as punishment for not heeding Him.

I don't understand how one would think anything good could come from a system like this. It sounds like Rome.

mm how have you reconciled these quotes with your understanding?

…In their conscious guilt, feeling themselves still under the divine displeasure, they could not endure the heavenly light, which, had they been obedient to God, would have filled them with joy. There is fear in guilt. The soul that is free from sin will not wish to hide from the light of heaven. {PP 329.5}

The enemies of God's law, from the ministers down to the least among them, have a new conception of truth and duty. {GC 640.1}

His eyes were as a flame of fire, which searched his children through and through. Then all faces gathered paleness, and those that God had rejected gathered blackness. Then we all cried out, who shall be able to stand? Is my robe spotless? Then the angels ceased to sing, and there was some time of awful silence, when Jesus spoke. Those who have clean hands and a pure heart shall be able to stand, my grace is sufficient for you. At this, our faces lighted up, and joy filled every heart…{ExV 11.1}

The men who smote and spit upon the Prince of life now turn from His piercing gaze and seek to flee from the overpowering glory of His presence. Those who drove the nails through His hands and feet, the soldier who pierced His side, behold these marks with terror and remorse. {GC 643.2}

In the lives of all who reject truth there are moments when conscience awakens, when memory presents the torturing recollection of a life of hypocrisy and the soul is harassed with vain regrets. But what are these compared with the remorse of that day when "fear cometh as desolation," when "destruction cometh as a whirlwind"! Proverbs 1:27. . {GC 644.1}

The setting aside of the divine precepts gave rise to thousands of springs of evil, discord, hatred, iniquity, until the earth became one vast field of strife, one sink of corruption.

This is the view that now appears to those who rejected truth and chose to cherish error. No language can express the longing which the disobedient and disloyal feel for that which they have lost forever--eternal life. Men whom the world has worshiped for their talents and eloquence now see these things in their true light....{GC 655.3}


They seek to flee from the presence of the King of kings. In the deep caverns of the earth, rent asunder by the warring of the elements, they vainly attempt to hide. {GC 643.4}

and what about this one that states that adam suffered the penalty for his transgression?

With patient humility he bore, for nearly a thousand years, the penalty of transgression. Faithfully did he repent of his sin and trust in the merits of the promised Saviour, and he died in the hope of a resurrection. The Son of God redeemed man's failure and fall; and now, through the work of the atonement, Adam is reinstated in his first dominion. {GC 647.3}

and this one that states that Christ felt what the eternally lost will feel? Christ [on the cross] felt much as sinners will feel when the vials of God's wrath shall be poured out upon them. Black despair like the pall of death will gather about their guilty souls, and then they will realize to the fullest extent the sinfulness of sin. {Mar 271.2}

Tom, I am unwilling to "flatter" myself and think God is too kind and loving to execute retributive justice. The wrath of God is love. "God's love has been expressed in His justice no less than in His mercy. Justice is the foundation of His throne, and the fruit of His love. {DA 762.3} I believe this view represents the truth and is, therefore, the best picture we have of God as it pertains to the execution of justice and judgment at the end of time. I do not believe God withdraws and leaves the work of justice to another.

Regarding sin not being a sentient being you have posted mixed messages. For example, above you wrote, the "inevitable result of sin is death, meaning that sin causes death . . ." If you do not intend for me to think you believe "sin causes death" you shouldn't say so.

Good quotes. But none of them refute the point I've been making. Fear is not guilt and shame ending in death. Adam did not suffer what the wicked will suffer at the end of time. And, none of the wicked will suffer in the same way or for the same reasons Jesus did. It is impossible.

MM, you say none of the quotes say the wicked will suffer in the same way Jesus did, but that's not true:

This is true. In Christ, we see what love (and hence wrath, using your definition) looks like.



The problem (from my perspective) is that you associate "justice" with "imposed retribution". I believe justice is expressed in the following:



I understand you interpret this is as God's imposing excruciating pain and then killing them, but that doesn't fit with the context of the statement, which is that God will *leave* them to suffer the full results of their sin, which is death. You can't "leave" someone to "capital punishment."

I've made this point many times. I don't think you've ever responded to it.





Right here is speaks of God's "leaving" Satan and his followers to "reap the full result of their sin." The "reaping" being spoken of here is justice.



You imposed a concept which is absurd to me, that of sin being a sentient being. It's as if I said "smoking causes cancer" and you said something like, "Smoking makes the decision to have certain people have cancer?"

I do not believe God withdraws and leaves the work of justice to another.

Regarding sin not being a sentient being you have posted mixed messages. For example, above you wrote, the "inevitable result of sin is death, meaning that sin causes death . . ." If you do not intend for me to think you believe "sin causes death" you shouldn't say so.

With patient humility he bore, for nearly a thousand years, the penalty of transgression.... {GC 647.3} Christ [on the cross] felt much as sinners will feel
when the vials of God's wrath shall be poured out upon them.

Black despair like the pall of death will gather about their guilty souls, and then they will realize to the fullest extent the sinfulness of sin. {Mar 271.2}

Tom,

You are saying despair will kill the wicked?

Jesus died under the weight of sins of the entire world. The wicked will each have but their own sins to bear.

I agree with Mike in this one. No one ever has or ever will suffer the same as Jesus did. Suffer, yes. The same way, no. Die, yes. The same way, no.

Our sins killed the Savior. It is nothing to take lightly, nor to belittle by making it appear a common thing which others also will bear.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I hadn't said, but I suppose that's possible.



That's enough.





Based on what you posted after this, I think you're disagreeing with a "difference" that doesn't exist.



Well, of course. I've never suggested this.



Agreed, almost completely. The only small caveat is that I would not characterize what the wicked experience as "a common thing." But certainly, what Jesus experienced cannot be compared to that of anyone else. As you point out, Jesus took upon Him all the sins of the world. No one will ever suffer, or has ever suffered, as He did.

To add another point, there is great solace in this for all of us. There are times when we are so low, we feel that no one has suffered like we are, or understands us, or knows our pain. And from a human standpoint, that my be true. But there is One, who suffered in Gethsemane, and on the cross, like none other, who knows what it's like to feel alone, abandoned, without hope in the world, who is touched by our sufferings and sorrows, and longs to comfort us.

but ellen white is the one who said it.

she also said this:

The heaviest burden that we bear is the burden of sin. If we were left to bear this burden, it would crush us. {ST, April 16, 1902 par. 11}

There is only one man who was appointed to bear the sins of the world. He is our Sin-bearer, there is only one sin-bearer. If He laid other sins on us, they would crush us; we can not even bear our own sins; but he can bear them, He can take them away. "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world." You just think of that. Be very anxious that He take away your sins, but don't you begin to judge a brother or sister; you lose your chance of eternal life, you can't afford it. {SW, January 23, 1902 par. 20}




Those who have not humbled their souls before God in acknowledging their guilt have not yet fulfilled the first condition of acceptance. If we have not experienced that repentance which is not to be repented of and have not confessed our sin with true humiliation of soul and brokenness of spirit, abhorring our iniquity, we have never sought truly for the forgiveness of sin; and if we have never sought, we have never found the peace of God. The only reason why we may not have remission of sins that are past is that we are not willing to humble our proud hearts and comply with the conditions of the word of truth. {2MCP 456.1}
There is explicit instruction given concerning this matter. Confession of sin, whether public or private, should be heartfelt and freely expressed. It is not to be urged from the sinner. It is not to be made in a flippant and careless way or forced from those who have no realizing sense of the abhorrent character of sin. The confession that is mingled with tears and sorrow, that is the outpouring of the inmost soul, finds its way to the God of infinite pity. Says the psalmist: "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit."--5T 636, 637 (1889). {2MCP 456.2}

that was beautiful.

we need to dwell on that more and more til we become truly Christlike.

It appears to me that you highly value God punishing sinners. That if sin itself should result in eternal death to sinners without God doing or causing anything, you would feel it is not praiseworthy of God. Is that true: Punishment is highly important for God to do?

Kland,

I think that you underestimate God's power, duties and role. God has many important duties. Punishment is not the most important, but it is important that sin be effaced from the universe, and that it be done so justly.

God has said "vengeance is mine." That means He will be taking care of things in the end, doesn't it? Do you suppose He would deceive us by telling us this and then have no vengeance?



We are told we can trust the Lord to avenge the wrongs done to us. God works His vengeance in righteousness. We must not think He does this with the same sinful motives we would have if we were the ones overseeing the judgments.



I find comfort in that God will be just. I am not happy that the wicked have chosen the way of destruction, but I am happy that they will not have the last word. I am happy that they will not be permitted to reign forever on this earth.

The following applies much, much closer to home. This is a very grave statement which she makes here, and not to be taken lightly.


Notice that Ellen White quotes the angel in her above statement.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

i understood this to be more of a question of ourselves. in other words, would we find God worthy of worship if He Himself were not going to wreak vengence on our enemies? how would we feel about God if He has other methods in mind?

again, as the pioneers pointed out, in the prophetic it speaks more of the certainty of the event happening, not to the means employed to bring it about.

Phrases sometimes take their shape from their first use. The first use of this is prophetic, Ex.iv,21, (Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.)spoken to Moses while yet in Midian, and manifestly having reference to the certainty of the event, and not to the particular kind of agency employed in producing it. {April 1, 1862 JWe, ARSH 139.20}

this is another relating of the incident stated a little differently:
Although Nabal had refused the needy company of David and his men, yet that very night he made an extravagant feast for himself and his riotous friends, and indulged in eating and drinking till he sunk in drunken stupor. The next day after the effects of his drunken debauch had somewhat passed away, his wife told him of how near he had been to death, and of how the calamity had been averted. As he listened, he realized what a course of evil would have resulted but for Abigail's discretion, and terror filled his heart. Palsied with horror, he sat down and never recovered from the shock. {21MR 214.3} when God says He returns the wickedness of the wicked back on them, that is exactly what He means. God did not kill nabal. nabal died as a result of his drunkenness, shock and fear that david would still come after him. nabals own wickedness killed him.

Psa 7:15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.

Psa 7:16 His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate.

then david glorifies God:
Psa 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD
most high.

david knew sin was not some good that God was withholding from us. david knew that sin kills.

God avenges Himself by making known the truth. He keeps an account of the wrongs to show the wicked themselves in the judgment. This is, as GC 541 puts it, for their own good.

His vengeance is really weird from our perspective. We would never call it vengeance. His vengeance is doing good to those who hate Him, and blessing those who would harm Him.

The principle is brought out in Romans:



I think often the connection between these verses is not seen. In verse 20, we are acting like God does when He takes His vengeance. *God* overcomes evil with good. The character of the good which overcomes evil is to feed your enemy if he is hungry, give him drink if he is thirsty, which does what? It heaps coals of fire on his head. This is the fire that comes from heaven which destroys the wicked.

Jesus spoke of the same concept in the Sermon on the Mount. He said to turn the other cheek, to walk the second mile, to pray for those who treat you despitefully, and so forth. This is God's character. It's not something he turns on and off like a switch, but is simply the way He is.

The "strange act" in the judgment is His allowing the wicked to receive the results of their choice. The wicked have so damaged themselves that merely being in the presence of God is a consuming fire. That glory of Him who is love will destroy them. God's glory is His character. God is love. They can't stand that. God gets His vengeance by simply being Himself.

Are you saying you don't quite believe Mrs. White meant what she said? Are you saying that she should have used a different word here, or described things differently?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, GC. I think Ellen White's comments were in harmony with what I've said, and with what Jesus Christ lived and taught.

I'm really rather confused by your questions. Don't you think it's a lot more likely that I would think you don't quite believe what Mrs. White said than that I don't?

There are tons of statements from Ellen White which lay out the principle I discussed. I've cited repeated from GC 35-37, and many others have been cited as well, by me and by others. Where you and I differ is I believe God's withdrawing His protection from the thousand unseen dangers He protects us from is fully sufficient for any punishment He would want to inflict. I don't believe there is any necessity for God to Himself cause things which would look just like the same things that would happen if He simply withdrew His protection. That leads to confusion for us, as we don't know who is who, which is important to understand at the time of the end.

That is, if we believe that both Satan and God will cause plagues, and inflict terrible pain upon their enemies, and kill them, we are in danger of:

1.Using the methods of Satan thinking we are using the methods of God.
2.Thinking that God is doing something when it's really Satan.
3.Misidentifying whether a person or persons is following God or Satan.

For you, it appears, God Himself has to actually inflict the pain, and cause the killings, or He is not being just or righteous or punishing sinners. I don't agree with this. In the Destruction of Jerusalem, God was just and righteous and punished those who rejected His Son. Indeed, we're told that never was there given a more decisive testimony of these things then the destruction of Jerusalem.

So, again, it's not the fact of the question at hand that I'm taking issue with, but the mechanism. Christ will avenge His elect, and He will do so by the methods you yourself quoted from the SOP, love, mercy and goodness. And this vengeance will be for the good of the wicked as well, as the text you quoted also brings out.

There are a number of things in your view that don't make sense to me. To name one, your view appears to me to be having Christ acting as a man who would take vengeance, as opposed to how He actually acted in taking vengeance against Jerusalem.

Excuse me for jumping in here and not reading all 18 pages. But my first thoughts on this are that yes God does allow or cause pain to happen for our good.

For instance .... when we pray for God to fill us with His Spirit and to resist the sins in our life. Only He can do this .... but He does not fully answer our plea. He allows us to have sin in our lives. And I think it is so that we will always see and feel the need for His power. If we had victory over all sins .... we would not see the need or we would forget the need for His power.

Sin is a constant reminder of our need for our Saviour.

The title of the thread is a bit misleading. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea for you to read the first couple of pages if you haven't already done so.