The Covenants

Posted By: Tom

The Covenants - 11/19/04 01:17 AM

The New Covenant is the same thing as the Abrahamic covenant. It is salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. This is how Abraham was saved and the only means by which any one cannot be saved.

The New Covenant included the promise of an inheritance, which was the new earth, to be received by the righteousness of faith. (Rom. 4:13) Since that land was an everlasting possession, the promise of the land includes the promise of everlasting life and the promise of the resurrection. Also since it would be a land in which righteousness would dwell (2 Pet. 3:13), the promise included righteousness. The promise included God Himself ("I am thy exceeding great reward" Gen 15 I think, from memory). And of course it included the promise of the Messiah, the Seed by who all nations would be blessed.

So in short, the promise included everything needed. Abraham believed, and it was counted to him for righteousness.

When God spoke to the COI, He pointed them to the promise, or covenant (same thing), He had made to Abraham. They misunderstood God, and rashly took it upon themselves to try to obtain the righteousness which God was attempting to give to them as a free gift. It was never God's intention that they or anyone else would try to obtain righteousness from the law, as such a thing is impossible. The people responded, "All that the Lord has said, WE will do." This is the essence of the Old Covenant -- works righteousness, attempting to obtain righteousness by good works.

It is important to note that God was not originally attempting to do anything with the COI other than what He done with Abraham, which was to preach the Gospel (Gal. 3:8). There was no need for God to institute a new or different plan because the plan He had was perfect. If the COI had simply believed God's promise, all would have been well.

Let us note how Jeremiah responded to the same words which God proclaimed to the COI:

"Hear ye the words of this covenant, and speak unto the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God: That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day. Then answered I, and said, So be it, O LORD."

The response of the people was "All that the Lord has said, we will do." The response of Jeremiah was "So be it, O LORD." Jeremiah understood God's words to be a promise, which they were. The only reason the Old Covenant came about in a formal sense was because of the unbelief of the people. This is why it can be said that the Old Covenant leads to bondage (Gal. 4:24). If it had originated from God, it would not have led to bondage because God does not lead us into bondage but out of bondage.

Finally the last point to tie together is showing that "promise" and 'covenant' are the same thing. "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise." (Gal. 3:17, 18)

Genesis says that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land, but Paul says it was given to him by promise. He also says that to disannul the covenant would be to make the promise of none effect. This shows that "covenant" and "promise" are equivalent.

In summary, the essence of the Old Covenant is the attempt to obtain righteousness by keeping the law. The New Covenant is the writing of the law in the heart, which happens when righteousness is obtained by believing in Christ.

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 11/20/04 09:52 AM

One of the best things I've read on this subject is "Why the Old Covenant Failed," by Joe Crews --

http://www.nisbett.com/library/why_old_covenant_failed-los13.html

(including a devastating argument against Sunday sacredness!)

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/21/04 10:00 AM

I got the impression that the presentation of Mr. Crews was presenting the Old Covenant as if it were God's intention to make a pact or agreement with the COI. "Notice how God asked Moses to present His offer to the people. Here are all the elements of a true covenant. Conditions and promises are laid down for both sides."

I don't think this is a right understanding of what was happening. Later on he writes:

"The crucial weakness in the whole arrangement revolved around the way Israel promised. There was no suggestion that they could not fully conform to every requirement of God. Neither was there any application for divine assistance. 'We can do it,' they insisted. Here is a perfect example of leaning on the flesh and trusting human strength. The words are filled with self-confidence. 'All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.'"

This is exactly right and an excellent description.

A key point to keep in mind is that the covenant (promise) God made with Abraham was perfect. There was no need for God to establish a different covenant with the COI, because there was nothing wrong with the one already in operation, the Everlasting Covenant, or Abrahamic Covenant. Indeed, this is exactly what God was doing -- repeating the promise He had made to Abraham.

Jeremiah understood what God was doing and responded, "So be it." This is an appropriate response to make to a promise. This is actually a translation of the Hebrew word "Amen" which has the connotation of "I believe." In other words, Jeremiah was responding exactly as Abraham did. Abraham believed and it was counted to him for righteous. Same as for Jeremiah.

The Old Covenant was not an invention of God's, but originated with the people's response of unbelieve to God's gracious promises. The same Old Covenant principle manifests itself whenever one responds to God by unbelief, which inevitably leads to works-rightouesness. We see this principle as early as Cain, who brought an offering of vegetables to God.

Unbelief is the root of all sin, and we see that Cain killed his brother. Similarly the people's unbelief manifested itself in the debauchery at Sinai.

It is just as possible for one to be in principle under the Old Covenant now as it was for the COI.

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 11/22/04 02:11 PM

quote:
I got the impression that the presentation of Mr. Crews was presenting the Old Covenant as if it were God's intention to make a pact or agreement with the COI. "Notice how God asked Moses to present His offer to the people. Here are all the elements of a true covenant. Conditions and promises are laid down for both sides."

I don't think this is a right understanding of what was happening.

A covenant includes promises, promises are involved; but the two terms are not equal.

And we have more to do than just believe. "The devils also believe, and tremble." James 2:19.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/29/04 06:35 AM

"Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother Dan Jones-Brother Porter and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented." (1888 Materials 604)

"I am much pleased to learn that Professor Prescott is giving the same lessons in his class to the students that Brother Waggoner has been giving. He is presenting the covenants...Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds." (1888 Materials 623)

"That the covenant and promise of God are one and the same thing, is clearly seen from Gal.3:17, where it appears that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of Canaan--and with it the whole world--for an everlasting possession; but Gal.3:18 says that God gave it to him by promise. God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Rom.11:35,36. It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things." But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part. After the flood God made a covenant with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Gen.9:9-16. They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do. God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing, and He gives us Himself, that is, everything. That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all, they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be a "mutual" affair--a transaction in which they will be considered as on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything, and gives everything." http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT04RedeemedfromtheCurse.htm

This is good too: http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT05TheAdoptionofSons.htm under the subheading "Mount Sinai and Mount Zion"

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/29/04 08:33 AM

Tom, how does your quote differ from the one I posted above, where Sister White wrote:

quote:
Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him.

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 11/29/04 01:01 PM

Tom, no matter how we might slice it, man still has a role to play in any covenant relationship with God:

"It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional."
{1SM 67.8}

I think Mike and I have given similar thoughts.

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 11/29/04 01:10 PM

Here's more:

"Many of us do not realize the covenant relation in which we stand before God as His people. We are under the most solemn obligations to represent God and Christ. We are to guard against dishonoring God by professing to be His people, and then going directly contrary to His will. We are getting ready to move. Then let us act as if we were. Let us prepare for the mansions that Christ has gone to prepare for those that love Him. Let us stand where we can take hold of eternal realities, and bring them into the everyday life. We are to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn of Him." General Conference Bulletin, April 1, 1903, p. 31. ("Lessons from Josiah's Reign")
{1MR 121.04}

It's absolutely true that God has infinitely more to 'bring to the table' than we sinful puny mortals do. But still we have our part to play, our obligations to uphold.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 11/29/04 02:25 PM

What do you all think about this? My view is a little different from Tom's.

PP 370ff:

As the Bible presents two laws, one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are two covenants. The covenant of grace was first made with man in Eden, when after the Fall there was given a divine promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. To all men this covenant offered pardon and the assisting grace of God for future obedience through faith in Christ. It also promised them eternal life on condition of fidelity to God's law. Thus the patriarchs received the hope of salvation.
This same covenant was renewed to Abraham in the promise, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Genesis 22:18. This promise pointed to Christ. So Abraham understood it (see Galatians 3:8, 16), and he trusted in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. It was this faith that was accounted unto him for righteousness. The covenant with Abraham also maintained the authority of God's law.... Though this covenant was made with Adam and renewed to Abraham, it could not be ratified until the death of Christ. It had existed by the promise of God since the first intimation of redemption had been given; it had been accepted by faith; yet when ratified by Christ, it is called a new covenant. The law of God was the basis of this covenant, which was simply an arrangement for bringing men again into harmony with the divine will, placing them where they could obey God's law.
Another compact--called in Scripture the "old" covenant--was formed between God and Israel at Sinai, and was then ratified by the blood of a sacrifice. The Abrahamic covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, and it is called the "second," or "new," covenant, because the blood by which it was sealed was shed after the blood of the first covenant.
But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant.... But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God's law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught.

So, what becomes clear? That there are two covenants: the covenant of grace and the old covenant. At Sinai God was not instituting a new or different plan of salvation, because this plan was already contained in the abrahamic covenant. But He was indeed instituting a different covenant - a provisory covenant (a teaching tool) - to lead the COI back to the abrahamic covenant, which, by the way, had not been abolished. So what I see is that both covenants - the eternal one and the provisory one - were running side by side.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/30/04 07:22 AM

FW 26, 47, 48
God has given men faculties and capabilities. God works and cooperates with the gifts He has imparted to man, and man, by being a partaker of the divine nature and doing the work of Christ, may be an overcomer and win eternal life. The Lord does not propose to do the work He has given man powers to do. Man's part must be done. He must be a laborer together with God, yoking up with Christ, learning His meekness, His lowliness. God is the all-controlling power. He bestows the gifts; man receives them and acts with the power of the grace of Christ as a living agent. {FW 26.1}

God's promises are all made upon conditions. If we do His will, if we walk in truth, then we may ask what we will, and it shall be done unto us. While we earnestly endeavor to be obedient, God will hear our petitions; but He will not bless us in disobedience. If we choose to disobey His commandments, we may cry, "Faith, faith, only have faith," and the response will come back from the sure Word of God, "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:20). Such faith will only be as sounding brass and as a tinkling cymbal. In order to have the benefits of God's grace we must do our part; we must faithfully work and bring forth fruits meet for repentance. {FW 47.2}

We are to do all that we can do on our part to fight the good fight of faith. We are to wrestle, to labor, to strive, to agonize to enter in at the strait gate. We are to set the Lord ever before us. With clean hands, with pure hearts, we are to seek to honor God in all our ways. Help has been provided for us in Him who is mighty to save. The spirit of truth and light will quicken and renew us by its mysterious workings; for all our spiritual improvement comes from God, not from ourselves. The true worker will have divine power to aid him, but the idler will not be sustained by the Spirit of God. {FW 48.1}

In one way we are thrown upon our own energies; we are to strive earnestly to be zealous and to repent, to cleanse our hands and purify our hearts from every defilement; we are to reach the highest standard, believing that God will help us in our efforts. We must seek if we would find, and seek in faith; we must knock, that the door may be opened unto us. The Bible teaches that everything regarding our salvation depends upon our own course of action. If we perish, the responsibility will rest wholly upon ourselves. If provision has been made, and if we accept God's terms, we may lay hold on eternal life. We must come to Christ in faith, we must be diligent to make our calling and election sure. {FW 48.2}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/30/04 07:23 AM

OHC 91
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." What does this mean? It means that every day you are to distrust your own human efforts and wisdom. You are to fear to speak at random, fear to follow your own impulses, fear that pride of heart and love of the world and lust of the flesh shall exclude the precious grace the Lord Jesus is longing to bestow upon you. {OHC 91.2}

Man's working, as brought out in the text, is not an independent work he performs without God. His whole dependence is upon the power and grace of the Divine Worker. Many miss the mark here, and claim that man must work his own individual self, free from divine power. This is not in accordance with the text. Another argues that man is free from all obligation, because God does it all, both the willing and the doing. The text means that the salvation of the human soul requires the will power to be subjective to the divine will power. . . . And it is the very hardest, sternest conflict which comes with the purpose and hour of great resolve and decision of the human to incline the will and way to God's will and God's way. {OHC 91.3}

Man is allotted a part in this great struggle for everlasting life; he must respond to the working of the Holy Spirit. It will require a struggle to break through the powers of darkness, but the Spirit that works in him can and will accomplish this. But man is no passive instrument to be saved in indolence. He is called upon to strain every muscle in the struggle for immortality, yet it is God that supplies the efficiency. {OHC 91.4}

Here are man's works, and here are God's works. . . . With these two combined powers, man will be victorious, and receive a crown of life at last. . . . He puts to the stretch every spiritual nerve and muscle that he may be a successful overcomer in this work, and that he may obtain the precious boon of eternal life. {OHC 91.5}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/30/04 07:36 AM

Rosangela, excellent quote. Thanx for sharing it. Our response to God and the covenant that applies to us today (the new covenant) should be the same as was Israel's response - "All that the Lord hath said we will do, and be obedient."

AG 142
The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense.... This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel.... {AG 142.2}

This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him. {AG 142.3}

Of course, certain criteria and conditions are different nowadays, that is, we are no longer required to kill animals for the forgiveness of our sins, but many, if not most, of the OT laws are still obligatory (either in principle or in particular). And the promises, the rewards, are very nearly identical - A Promised Land, flowing with milk and honey, where sin and sickness and death are no more.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/30/04 02:55 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Tom, how does your quote differ from the one I posted above, where Sister White wrote:

quote:
Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him.

I'm not understanding your question. Waggoner's views was the same as Ellen White's. I think you may be misunderstanding Ellen White's view. There's an easy way to find out. Read what Waggoner wrote, and if you see that it is in harmony with what Ellen White wrote, you've got the right understanding. If you think she and Waggoner are saying two different things, then you're not seeing her view correctly.

This is what I think. I can easily defend my reasoning, if desired, but I'll wait to see if that's necessary.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/30/04 02:58 AM

"It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional."

The condition is faith.

"There is not a point that needs to be dwelt upon more earnestly, repeated more frequently, or established more firmly in the minds of all than the impossibility of fallen man meriting anything by his own best good works. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone." (FW 19)

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/30/04 03:11 AM

quote:
So, what becomes clear? That there are two covenants: the covenant of grace and the old covenant. At Sinai God was not instituting a new or different plan of salvation, because this plan was already contained in the abrahamic covenant. But He was indeed instituting a different covenant - a provisory covenant (a teaching tool) - to lead the COI back to the abrahamic covenant, which, by the way, had not been abolished. So what I see is that both covenants - the eternal one and the provisory one - were running side by side.

God did not initiate the covenant, the people did.

God made a perfect covenant with Abraham, which had everything the people needed. When God said "if you keep My covenant," he was referring to the only covenant then formally in existance, which was the perfect covenant He made with Abraham. There was no need for God to refer to any other. This is in harmony with what EGW says when she says the Old would not have been necessary had they believed the Covenant God made with Abraham.

Because of unbelief, the people sought to establish their own righteousness (also in the PP chapter). This was not God's intention. It was God's intention that they would respond to His promises in faith, just as Abraham did, and how Jeremiah did.

Here's Jeremiah 11:2-5

quote:
Hear ye the words of this covenant, and speak unto the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem;
3 And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant,
4 Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God:
5 That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day. Then answered I, and said, So be it, O LORD.

As I see it, perfect obedience to the law of God, the moral law of 10 commandments, is required whether we are talking about the old or the new covenant. This being true, it would appear that the main difference between the two covenants is the means and methods whereby atonement and eternal life are made available. But in reality, the type and antitype are one and the same thing, if received by and through faith in Jesus Christ. Every covenant ever made between God and man, and there have been a few, are all rooted upon the perfect life and death of Jesus, and the conditions of eternal life are based upon obedience to the law of God.

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/04 07:32 AM

Rosangela, welcome aboard, and you're right. The Abrahamic covenant is the New Covenant. They're one and the same. The Sinai covenant was a different animal.

Mike, I agree with you too, except the wording of one thing where I bet you meant something different.

quote:
it would appear that the main difference between the two covenants is the means and methods whereby atonement and eternal life are made available.

Don't you mean to say the ordinances associated with each covenant? The means by which atonement and eternal life are made available has always been one thing, and one thing only, for all men in all ages: Jesus' sacrificial death and subsequent temple ministry.

"The plan of saving sinners through Christ alone was the same in the days of Adam, Noah, Abraham, and in every successive generation living before the advent of Christ, as it is in our day."
{BEcho, July 15, 1893 para. 7}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/04 12:53 AM

The two women, Hagar and Sarah, represent the two covenants. We read that Hagar is Mount Sinai, "bearing children for slavery." Just as Hagar could bring forth only slave children, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, cannot beget free men. It can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law brings wrath," "since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Romans 4:15; 3:20. At Sinai the people promised to kept the given law. But in their own strength they had no power to keep the law.

Mount Sinai "bore children for slavery," since their promise to make themselves righteous by their own works was not successful and can never be.

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin. They had no power to break their chains. And the speaking of the law made no change in that condition. If a man is in prison for crime, he does not gain release by hearing the statutes read to him. Reading to him the law that put him there only makes his captivity more painful.

Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage? Not by any means, since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and therefore was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them (and us) from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin.

So, when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine." Exodus 19:5, KJV. To what covenant did He refer? Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, keep the faith, and believe God's promise, they would be a "peculiar treasure" unto God. As the possessor of all the earth, He was able to do for them all that He had promised.

The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves does not prove that God had led them into making that covenant.

If the children of Israel who came out of Egypt had but walked "in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham" (Romans 4:12, KJV), they would never have boasted that they could keep the law spoken from Sinai, "for the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." (Romans 4:13, KJV). Faith justifies. Faith makes righteous. If the people had had Abraham's faith, they would have had the righteousness that he had. At Sinai the law, which was "spoken because of transgression," would have been in their hearts. They would not have needed to be awaked by its thunders to a sense of their condition. God never expected, and does not now expect, that any person can get righteousness by the law proclaimed from Sinai, and everything connected with Sinai shows it. Yet the law is truth and must be kept. God delivered the people from Egypt "that they might observe His statutes, and keep His laws." Psalm 105:45, KJV. We do not get life by keeping the commandments, but God gives us life in order that we may keep them through faith in Him.

The apostle when speaking of Hagar and Sarah says: "These women are two covenants." These two covenants exist today. The two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Let no one flatter himself that he cannot be bound under the old covenant, thinking that its time has passed. The time for that is passed only in the sense that "the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lust, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries." 1 Peter 4:3, KJV.

The difference is just the difference between a free woman and a slave. Hagar's children, no matter how many she might have had, would have been slaves while those of Sarah would necessarily be free. So the covenant from Sinai holds all who adhere to it in bondage "under the law," while the covenant from above gives freedom, not freedom from obedience to the law, but freedom from disobedience to it. The freedom is not found away from the law but in the law. Christ redeems from the curse, which is the transgression of the law, so that the blessing may come on us. And the blessing is obedience to the law. "Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord." Psalm 119:1. This blessedness is freedom. "I shall walk at liberty; for I have sought Thy precepts." Psalm 119:45.

The difference between the two covenants may be put briefly thus: In the covenant from Sinai we ourselves have to do with the law alone, while in the covenant from above we have the law in Christ. In the first instance it is death to us, since the law is sharper than any two-edged sword, and we are not able to handle it without fatal results. But in the second instance we have the law "in the hand of a Mediator." In the one case it is what we can do. In the other case it is what the Spirit of God can do.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/04 01:30 AM

Hi, John! Thanks for the welcome. I was visiting the forum and this discussion caught my attention. I tried to discuss this subject at VOAF once but nobody seemed able to understand my point.

Mike,
The differences go beyond the distinction between type and antitype. Let's examine the text again:

"The terms of the 'old covenant' were, Obey and live: 'If a man do, he shall even live in them' (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but 'cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.' Deuteronomy 27:26. The 'new covenant' was established upon 'better promises'--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. 'This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more.' Jeremiah 31:33, 34. (PP 372)

Who can obey perfectly? None of us, of course. This means that under the old covenant all were cursed and no one was entitled to life. (See Gal. 3:12-14 and Heb. 9:15.) No wonder that "the only means of salvation is provided under the Abrahamic covenant" (ST, September 5, 1892).
Where is the promise of forgiveness of sin in the old covenant (in the five books of Moses)? It simply doesn't exist. No wonder that the new covenant has better promises.
Besides, there was no atonement specified in the law for transgressions such as murder, adultery, blasphemy, idolatry and others. The penalty was death - no exceptions allowed.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/04 01:40 AM

quote:
The difference between the two covenants may be put briefly thus: In the covenant from Sinai we ourselves have to do with the law alone, while in the covenant from above we have the law in Christ. In the first instance it is death to us, since the law is sharper than any two-edged sword, and we are not able to handle it without fatal results. But in the second instance we have the law "in the hand of a Mediator." In the one case it is what we can do. In the other case it is what the Spirit of God can do.

I agree, Tom. But I'm trying to define exactly what happened. My opinion is that since they didn't understand the sinfulness of their own hearts, the Lord gave them a covenant to show them that they were transgressors and only deserved death. In this way they would be led to feel their need for the Savior promised in the abrahamic covenant.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/04 02:14 AM

quote:
I agree, Tom. But I'm trying to define exactly what happened. My opinion is that since they didn't understand the sinfulness of their own hearts, the Lord gave them a covenant to show them that they were transgressors and only deserved death. In this way they would be led to feel their need for the Savior promised in the abrahamic covenant.

God gave to them His perfect covenant, which is the same as saying He made promises to them. They misunderstood what God was doing (as we often do) and they made promises to Him. It was these promises that were faulty. God's promises are not faulty; they're perfect.

The Old Covenant leads to bondage. Remember that "covenant" means "promise" (see Gal. 3:17, 18). If God initiated the Covenant, then He made promises which led the COI into bondage. God doesn't do that. The people made promises which led themselves into bondage.

You're right about the people not seeing the sinfulness of their hearts. Because of this God associated a system of sacrifices and rules to the covenant which they had initiated with Him in order that they might see their need for Christ and trust in the promises He had made to them in the New Covenant (or Everlasting Covenant, or Abrahamic Covenant -- same thing)

Makes sense?

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/05/04 12:17 AM

quote:
The Old Covenant leads to bondage. Remember that "covenant" means "promise" (see Gal. 3:17, 18). If God initiated the Covenant, then He made promises which led the COI into bondage. God doesn't do that.

Yes, the old covenant leads to bondage if you try to obtain salvation by it. The only means of salvation is under the abrahamic covenant.
If I’m understanding you correctly, what you are saying is that the people initiated a covenant with God and God ratified the covenant that the people initiated. It is here that I diverge. Why anyway would God ratify something that leads to bondage? God doesn't do that. In my view God originated the old covenant; not, however, to be a means of salvation, but to teach them about the sinfulness of their heart and their need of a Savior, and thus lead them to seek salvation through the abrahamic covenant.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/05/04 04:00 AM

Yes, because the COI were required to obey the old covenant, to practice the daily and annual ceremonies. Obeying the Abrahamic covenant included, in the case of the COI, complying the conditions of the old covenant. In other words, the old covenant was not optional, as if they could choose between the two.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/05/04 06:52 AM

quote:
Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage? Not by any means, since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham which was sufficient for all purposes.

quote:
So, when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine." Exodus 19:5, KJV. To what covenant did He refer? Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, keep the faith, and believe God's promise, they would be a "peculiar treasure" unto God. As the possessor of all the earth, He was able to do for them all that He had promised.

The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves does not prove that God had led them into making that covenant.

quote:
God never expected, and does not now expect, that any person can get righteousness by the law proclaimed from Sinai, and everything connected with Sinai shows it. Yet the law is truth and must be kept. God delivered the people from Egypt "that they might observe His statutes, and keep His laws." Psalm 105:45, KJV. We do not get life by keeping the commandments, but God gives us life in order that we may keep them through faith in Him.

quote:
The apostle when speaking of Hagar and Sarah says: "These women are two covenants." These two covenants exist today. The two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Let no one flatter himself that he cannot be bound under the old covenant, thinking that its time has passed.

"Why anyway would God ratify something that leads to bondage? God doesn't do that."

This is a very good question, but I disagree with your conclusion. It is true that God never leads us into bondage, but if we choose something that leads to bondage, God, out of respect for our freedom, will often honor that choice. For example, we may choose a marriage partner He would have not led us to choose if we waited for His leading, but He will honor our choice.

We often, often do things which God would not have chosen for us, but if we will not keep step with Him, He will keep step with us. God's whole dealings with Israel illustrate this principle. Polygamy is an example. Allowing Israel to have a king. There are lots of examples of this principle.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/05/04 01:57 PM

Mike,
I agree with what you said.

Tom,
I don't see how the people might have initiated the old covenant. It embodies a series of laws God prescribed to the COI, so He took the initiative to make the covenant, not the people. This is specially true of the civil laws, which applied specifically to the COI and of course cannot be part of the everlasting covenant. The people only responded to the covenant - in a wrong way, to be sure.

"Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you'" (Heb. 9:18-20).

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 12/06/04 07:25 AM

Ellen White's narrative in Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 371, shows clearly that God instituted the Old Covenant, not the Israelites.

"But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant. In delivering them from Egypt, God sought to reveal to them His power and His mercy, that they might be led to love and trust Him. He brought them down to the Red Sea -- where, pursued by the Egyptians, escape seemed impossible -- that they might realize their utter helplessness, their need of divine aid; and then He wrought deliverance for them. Thus they were filled with love and gratitude to God and with confidence in His power to help them. He had bound them to Himself as their deliverer from temporal bondage.
{PP 371.2}

"But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God's law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught.
{PP 371.3}

"God brought them to Sinai; He manifested His glory; He gave them His law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: 'If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.' Exodus 19:5, 6. The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God."
{PP 371.4}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/06/04 07:52 AM

quote:
"Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother Dan Jones-Brother Porter and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented." (1888 Materials 604)

quote:
"I am much pleased to learn that Professor Prescott is giving the same lessons in his class to the students that Brother Waggoner has been giving. He is presenting the covenants...Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds." (1888 Materials 623)

quote:
Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage? Not by any means, since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai.

quote:
So, when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine." Exodus 19:5, KJV. To what covenant did He refer? Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, keep the faith, and believe God's promise, they would be a "peculiar treasure" unto God. As the possessor of all the earth, He was able to do for them all that He had promised.

The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves does not prove that God had led them into making that covenant.

We have:
1) According to EGW, the view of Waggoner is true.
2) Waggoner taught that God did not initiate the Old Covenant.

The unavoidable conclusion, it seems to me, is that you are misunderstanding what EGW wrote. We also have EGW saying

1) Yourself, Brother Dan Jones-Brother Porter and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented.

I don't know how this could be stated any clearer.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/05/04 10:29 PM

In view of the fact Waggoner's ideas on this specific aspect of the old covenant contradicts what Sister White has plainly written about it, is evidence that Waggoner is wrong. Unless you can prove Sister White endorsed this particular point, then it stands to reason that Waggoner is wrong, which is not to say everything he wrote about the old covenant is wrong. Obviously, much of what he did write about it was correct, otherwise she wouldn't have supported him. What exactly did Brother Jones and Porter disagree with?

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 12/05/04 10:45 PM

EGW endorsed Waggoner's covenant views in 1890.

link , {1888 604.2}

link , {1888 623.4}

But I just found that Waggoner's Glad Tidings wasn't written until 1900.

http://www.aplib.org/wop2bib.pdf , page 10 bottom

Isn't it possible that Waggoner changed his teaching on this point between 1890 and 1900? Or that he added it in the interim, and didn't teach it at all in 1890? The language in Patriarchs and Prophets is pretty plain.

[ December 05, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: John ]

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/06/04 08:38 AM

quote:
In view of the fact Waggoner's ideas on this specific aspect of the old covenant contradicts what Sister White has plainly written about it, is evidence that Waggoner is wrong.

It can't contradict it! That's my whole point!

If you think they are contradictory, isn't it possible you're misunderstanding something? What does this mean?

quote:
Yourself, Brother Dan Jones-Brother Porter and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/06/04 08:54 AM

John, that's an excellent and fair question.

Waggoner's views on the Covenants did not change from 1892 to 1900. She had specific reference to Waggoner's Sabbath Schools lessons. I couldn't find them on line. I've read them (they have them at Andrews) and they are the same as what's in the Glad Tidings. A key point he brought out in the Sabbath School lessons was that the "faulty promises" of Hebrews 8 was the promises of the people.

Waggoner had writing The Glad Tidings in view from at least as early as 1888 when he handed out "The Gospel in Galatians" which references the fact that he would like to write a commentary on Galatians.

The reason Jones, Porter and so on were arguing against Waggoner's view of the Covenants is because it was tied into his view of the law in Galatians (that it was primarily the moral law). They saw if they conceded Waggoner was right about the Covenants, they would have to concede he was right about the law in Galatians as well, and they were not willing to do that.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/06/04 09:04 AM

Q. What exactly did Brother Jones and Porter disagree with?

A. I addressed this a bit in the response to John. They disagreed with Waggoner's view of the Covenants because had they accepted it they would have had to accept his teachings regarding the law in Galatians.

Salient points to Waggoner's view of the covenants are:

1) The "covenants" of God are "promises"
2) The Old Covenant was initiated by the COI, not by God.
3) The Old Covenant was a matter of condition, not of time.
4) The "faulty promises" of Hebrews 8 were the promises of the people.

There's no way to divorce EGW's endorsement of Waggoner's teaching of the covenants from these salient points. These points are interconnected and form the heart of Waggoner's view. If you change Waggoner's assertion that the Old Testament was initiated by the people to the idea that God initiated it, then you have the view of those who were opposing Waggoner, the view of those that EGW said were "wasting their investigative powers."

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/07/04 07:32 AM

Sister White did not agree with Waggoner regarding the law in Galatians:

1SM 233
I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments. {1SM 233.1}

It is obviuos, to me, that Sister White did not agree with everything Waggoner wrote about the law and the old covenant. Yes, she endorsed his basic premise, but not all the particulars. She wrote very plainly, in words that cannot be misconstrued, that God made the old covenant with the COI, and that He required them to comply with its conditions.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/07/04 09:10 AM

Mike, it appears to me you are either unknowledgeable about this issue or being purposely disingenuous.

quote:
"The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24). In this scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and causes us to feel our need of Christ and to flee unto Him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren {E.J.} Waggoner and {A.T.} Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world. (1SM 234)

Ellen White perceived that the subject treated in the 1888 conference transcended simply the law in Galatians but that God was giving us great light in regards to righteousness by faith. She said Waggoner and Jones could teach it better than she could. She said she would be as a little child to receive all the rays of light that God had to share. She endorced their writings over 1000 times for a period of time lasting more or less a decade.

I am well acquainted with her endorcements ( she wrote over 2000 pages dealing with 1888) and with Jones and Waggoner's teachings, and am only aware of one detail on which she corrected either Jones or Waggoner regarding their theological views. (The issue in question was regarding whether Christ could sin or not. Waggoner taught for a short time that because Christ had perfect faith, He couldn't sin. EGW corrected him, and he accepted the correction.)

In the support she gave of Waggoner's view on the Law in Galatians, she not only agreed with it, but stated it.

The endorcement of the Covenants is also an implicit endorcement of Waggoner's view on the Two Covenants because she said those who opposed Waggoner's views on the Covenants did so because they saw if they accepted Waggoner's view on the Covenants, they would have to accept his view on the law. When EGW said Waggoner's view on the Covenants was correct, the implication is his view on the Law in Galatians was correct as well.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/07/04 03:05 PM

Ellen G. White said that God had shown her in vision that Crosier “had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary etc., and I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that Extra [a special edition of a periodical containing Edson and Crosier’s views] to every saint.” (Letter of Ellen White to Eli Curtis, Apr. 21, 1847, in A Word to the Little Flock, p. 12). But how far did she endorse Crosier’s article? It contains several positions contrary to her teachings, like his views that no atonement was made at the cross and that the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary was for "forgiveness of sins" only; hence, when the work in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary closed (Oct. 22, 1844), there ended forgiveness of sins for all the world.
As McMahon says, “to quote Mrs. White's endorsement of Waggoner is like quoting her endorsement of 0. R. L. Crosier's article on the sanctuary. Some have tried to use this endorsement to support everything Crosier wrote in the article. But careful investigation will show that Mrs. White took a number of positions decidedly contrary to Crosier. There is a great difference between full and qualified endorsement.”

Posted By: Ikan

Re: The Covenants - 12/07/04 04:29 PM

Ooops

Posted By: Ikan

Re: The Covenants - 12/07/04 04:32 PM

Pontos excelentes, meu amigo brazilian. Nenhum mensageiro tem a resposta cheia muito no começo. Prophets, sim: professores e mensageiros, No..

Translation: all saints progress in their understanding or are cut off in their self-sufficiency. Beware!

Perhaps the best way to fully understand Elder Waggoner's fullest researchings, you need to study what he wrote in 1900, his fine book "The Everlasting Covenant". Leaves of Autumn may still have copies available. My two copies are thumb-warn and underlined like crazy.
This was the acme of his work, even more than his Galatians book. And sadly what most people have today is some abridged and mangled version by Mr. Wieland.

Could you please post as "Dan Jones", not just Jones, as newcomers may think it's A.T.!

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/08/04 07:16 AM

Tom, did God require the COI to comply with the conditions of the old covenant? If you can answer, Yes, then our differences are merely academic.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/08/04 12:40 AM

The only condition for salvation is faith (true faith) in Jesus Christ. Such faith is always manifest in obedience to God's commandments, and indeed, the law is written in heart when a person believes (that's a part of the New Covenant).

The requirement for salvation has never changed since the fall. What God required of them is exactly what He requires of us, and vice versa.

Please let me know if that answers your question.

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 12/08/04 07:11 AM

Regarding errors on the parts of Jones and Waggoner, it appears that God raised them up to assist Sis. White in the proclamation of His message of righteousness by faith, but that they didn't stay faithful for long. Jones ended up throwing in with J.H. Kellogg before the 1890's were out, and Waggoner followed not long after. As early as 1891 Waggoner had heretical ideas concerning "spiritual affinities":

(To W.W. Prescott) -- "I have been shown your peril during the time of your connecting with Dr. E.J. Waggoner. You both came to the conference of 1891, enthused with what you supposed to be precious spiritual light. You were desirous of presenting this light to me, but I was shown that much of that which you supposed to be precious light was dangerous, misleading fables, and that I must have no conversation with you regarding these ideas that were filling your minds.
{10MR 358.03}

"The theories held by Ellet Waggoner were similar in character to those we had met and rebuked in several places where we met fanatical movements after the passing of the time in 1844. Dr. Waggoner was then departing from the faith in the doctrine he held regarding spiritual affinities."
{10MR 358.04} (1908)

"Spiritual affinities" involved the belief that one could be married to one spouse in this life, yet be spiritually mated to another person who was to be one's mate in the life to come. Waggoner's beliefs in this area eventually led to his divorce, remarriage, and separation from the SDA Church. And we see he had these strange beliefs only a few short years after the 1888 conference, and well before he wrote Glad Tidings in 1900.

Glad Tidings itself contains pantheistic teachings, which shows Kellogg's influence over Waggoner even in 1900:

"To believe on His name is to believe that He is the Son of God; to believe that He is the Son of God, means to believe that He is come in the flesh, in human flesh, in our flesh, for His name is "God with us;" so to believe on His name means simply to believe that He dwells personally in every man, -- in all flesh. We do not make it so by believing it; it is so, whether we believe it or not; we simply accept the fact, which all nature reveals to us."

http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT03LifebytheFaithofChrist.htm (about 2/3 of the way down the page)

EGW also had to rein in A.T. Jones in his teaching about justification. Writing to Jones in 1893, Mrs. White said,

"In my dream you were presenting the subject of faith and the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith. You repeated several times that works amounted to nothing, that there were no conditions. The matter was presented in that light that I knew minds would be confused, and would not receive the correct impression in reference to faith and works, and I decided to write to you. You state this matter too strongly. There are conditions to our receiving justification and sanctification, and the righteousness of Christ. I know your meaning, but you leave a wrong impression upon many minds."
{1SM 377.1}

Point being, we have to be careful when using Jones and Waggoner's works, and pay special attention to when they were written.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/08/04 08:27 AM

Tom, I'm not sure if your response answered my question. Again, my question is - Did God require the COI to comply with the conditions of the old covenant? I realize they were saved by faith, not by works, the same as we are today, but faith without works is dead. So, did God require the COI to comply with the conditions of the old covenant? That is, did He require them to obey the moral and ceremonial laws? Was their salvation dependent upon them obeying these laws?

AA 207, 208
The Galatians were given up to the worship of idols; but, as the apostles preached to them, they rejoiced in the message that promised freedom from the thralldom of sin. Paul and his fellow workers proclaimed the doctrine of righteousness by faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. They presented Christ as the one who, seeing the helpless condition of the fallen race, came to redeem men and women by living a life of obedience to God's law and by paying the penalty of disobedience. And in the light of the cross many who had never before known of the true God, began to comprehend the greatness of the Father's love. {AA 207.2}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/08/04 10:43 PM

John, Ellen White's endorsements of Waggoner and Jones, over 1000 of them, continued well into the 1890's. In 1895 her endorsements of W. W. Prescott were very stong as well.

As I stated before, the only theological correction EGW issued towards either EJW or ATJ that I am aware of was towards EJW stating that he was incorrect to say that Christ could not sin. That's it. The spiritual affinity quote you provided was from 1908, well outside the time of her endorsements. The statement in 1893 was regarding a dream, indicating God was using her to warn one of the messengers of a possible mistake. There's no record of her speaking ill of any of Jones' actual teachings at this time.

Regarding their falling away, she wrote:

quote:
It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God. They walk in the sparks of their own kindling, and cannot distinguish between the fire they have kindled and the light which God has given, and they walk in blindness as did the Jews. (1888 Mat. 1044)

Ellen White never claimed Waggoner and Jones had a message to "assist" her in the preaching of righteousness by faith. They had a message from God, and she benefited by that message because she opened her heart to receive it. She stated they taught righteousness by faith better than she did. She stated that they brought a message which we would not have had unless God had sent it by someone else, indicating that it was not a message she had been presenting.

Here is one of her endorsements:

quote:
This message has not had the influence that it should have had upon the mind and heart of the believers. The true state of the church is to be presented before men, and they are to receive the word of God not as something originating with men, but as the word of God. Many have treated the message to the Laodiceans as it has come to them, as the word of man...The message given us by A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean church, and woe be unto anyone who professes to believe the truth and yet does not reflect to others the God-given rays. (1888 Mat. 1052)

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/08/04 10:47 PM

God required of the COI exactly what He had always required. They were saved by faith in Christ. True faith is always manifest in obedience God's commandments.

In our time we partake of communion and baptism as public expressions of our faith. In their time they had different methods of manifesting their faith, but the principle is exactly the same for them as well as for us. They, and we, are justified by faith which works.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/09/04 04:59 AM

So, is that a yes or no? Did God require the COI to obey the old covenant? Did their salvation depend on their obedience?

RH
Our salvation depends on our obedience. {RH, April 26, 1898 par. 2}

RC 274
The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been--just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents--perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness. {RC 274.5}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/09/04 06:10 AM

quote:
The conditions of eternal life, under grace, are just what they were in Eden--perfect righteousness, harmony with God, perfect conformity to the principles of His law. The standard of character presented in the Old Testament is the same that is presented in the New Testament. This standard is not one to which we cannot attain. In every command or injunction that God gives there is a promise, the most positive, underlying the command. God has made provision that we may become like unto Him, and He will accomplish this for all who do not interpose a perverse will and thus frustrate His grace. (MB 76)

quote:
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
(John 6:28,29)

Those who believe obey. Those who obey believe. There's no difference whatsoever between the requirement to believe and obey. True faith is always manifest in obedience. True obedience is only possible by faith.

God required of the COI that they be justified by faith which works. This would be theirs if they did not interpose a perverse will and frustrate His grace.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/09/04 08:00 AM

Did God require the COI to obey the old covenant? Yes or no, please.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/09/04 09:16 AM

Do you believe that Waggoner's view of the Covenant is truth? Based on what you've written, I have doubts that you understand the Old Covenant as I do. I know you don't if you disagree with Waggoner's view. She warned that trying to establish a view of the Covenants different than Waggoner's was a "waste of investigative power" yet as far as I can tell, this is what you're doing.

If your view of the Old Covenant is different than mine (I agree with Ellen White that Waggoner's view is correct) then how can I answer your question? I will mean one thing (what Waggoner meant) and you will mean another (what you mean), unless your view is in harmony with his.

I've explained several times what I believe God's requirements for the COI were. They were exactly the same as His requirements for us. They needed to believe in Christ so that their sins could be forgiven and their hearts of stone could be replaced by hearts of flesh, on which would be written God's law. By faith they were to be obedient to God's commands, just as we.

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 12/09/04 02:02 PM

Tom, I think you might need to re-read those quotes I supplied in the last post.

quote:
The spiritual affinity quote you provided was from 1908, well outside the time of her endorsements.

She wrote that passage in 1908, yes, but the event to which she was referring in that passage occurred in 1891, just three years after 1888.

quote:
The statement in 1893 was regarding a dream, indicating God was using her to warn one of the messengers of a possible mistake. There's no record of her speaking ill of any of Jones' actual teachings at this time.

Not so. If you'll read the entire passage from 1SM carefully, it's very plain that what she saw in her dream was an actual event where Jones was preaching misleading theories. Hence the need for her to send him this testimony. She wasn't warning him about what might happen; she was warning him about what he had already done, and would continue to do if she didn't alert him as to his error.

I understand very well that EGW endorsed Waggoner and Jones' message of righteousness by faith as presented at the Minneapolis 1888 General Conference session. But that doesn't transfer over into her endorsing everything they taught anywhere near that time. What I'm illustrating here is that even a few years after 1888 both men were believing and teaching things that were in error, and EGW was shown this. So we need to be careful what and how much we accept of what Jones & Waggoner taught on certain subjects.

As for your statement that the 1888 message "was not a message she [EGW] had been presenting," -- she herself wrote,

"I have had the question asked, what do you think of this light which these men [A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner] are presenting? Why, I have been presenting it to you for the last forty-five years, -- the matchless charms of Christ. This is what I have been trying to present before your minds." Ms 5, 1889, p. 10. (Sermon delivered at Rome, N. Y., June 17, 1889.)
{1MR 142.1}

Evidently her treatment of the subject had been falling on deaf ears to some degree, so God raised up Waggoner and Jones in another attempt to get His message through.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/09/04 06:48 PM

Tom, you haven't answered my question with a straight forward answer. And I think I know why. You seem to be afraid to admit that God required the COI to obey the old covenant because you don't believe God initiated it. And if it didn't originate with God then it would be wrong for Him to insist that they comply with the specific criteria and conditions required therein.

The question now is, Which criteria and conditions do you believe the COI added, which ones do you believe God did not require? I think I know the answer to this question, but please, I would like to see it first. Please, don't ask me to post what I think, at least, not until you post it first. Thanx.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/11/04 10:10 AM

Mike: Tom, you haven't answered my question with a straight forward answer.

Tom: I've answered your question like four times. If you don't know what the old covenant is, how can I answer your question? You will interpret my meaning incorrectly -- you have to.

Let me ask you this, does the Old Covenant lead to bondage? If it does, which is what Gal. 4:24 says, then wouldn't fulfilling it lead to bondage?

Mike: And I think I know why.

Tom: I doubt it, even thought I've clearly told you. It's because you appear to me to not understand what the Old Covenant is.

Mike: You seem to be afraid to admit that God required the COI to obey the old covenant because you don't believe God initiated it.

Tom: I know God didn't initiate it. God gave us light about it. He told us so through His prophet.

quote:
Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds. (1888 Mat. 623)

quote:
"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai.

quote:
which things are symbolic. For these are the F15 two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- (Gal. 4:24)

Isn't this clear?

Mike: And if it didn't originate with God then it would be wrong for Him to insist that they comply with the specific criteria and conditions required therein.

Tom: Why would this follow? I don't think it does. Inspiration teaches us we should honor our vows to God.

Mike: The question now is, Which criteria and conditions do you believe the COI added, which ones do you believe God did not require? I think I know the answer to this question, but please, I would like to see it first. Please, don't ask me to post what I think, at least, not until you post it first. Thanx.

Tom: I've answered this several times. The conditions for eternal life are the same for them as for any person who has lived in all history. They were justified by faith in Christ which works. By faith in Christ they were to be obedient to God's commands. How can I say this any more clearly Mike? What is it that you're not understanding? I don't get it.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/11/04 06:44 PM

The question now is, (1) which criteria and conditions do you believe the COI added, and (2) which ones do you believe God would not have required them to obey had they not insisted on it?

The old covenant includes the same conditions and requirements as contained in the Abrahamic covenant, plus more. The old covenant also requires everything required by the new covenant, plus more. What I'm asking you about is the "plus more" conditions and requirements contained in the old covenant. What is considered "plus more", and which aspects of the old covenant do you believe engendered bondage?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/12/04 08:31 AM

Mike, I don't think you're understanding the covenants. If you were, you would be representing Waggoner's view, which is "truth" as well as "clear and convincing." I suggest you read it carefully. It's very easy to understand I think.

Here's a couple of statements from PP that may be helpful:

quote:
If man had kept the law of God, as given to Adam after his fall, preserved by Noah, and observed by Abraham, there would have been no necessity for the ordinance of circumcision. And if the descendants of Abraham had kept the covenant, of which circumcision was a sign, they would never have been seduced into idolatry, nor would it have been necessary for them to suffer a life of bondage in Egypt; they would have kept God's law in mind, and there would have been no necessity for it to be proclaimed from Sinai or engraved upon the tables of stone. And had the people practiced the principles of the Ten Commandments, there would have been no need of the additional directions given to Moses. (PP 364)

quote:
God brought them to Sinai; He manifested His glory; He gave them His law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: "If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Exodus 19:5, 6. The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. (PP 371,372)

If what you said were true, the COI would not have had a need to return to the Abrahamic covenant. Jeremiah 31 (and Hebrews 8) makes clear the shortcomings of the Old Covenant.

Regarding what leads to bondage, I'll give a short answer, but Waggoner, the instrument which God used to communicate this truth to us, is more eloquent on this than I, so I would like you to read what he writes.

What led to bondage was unbelief. Note how Jeremiah responded to the same promise God gave to the COI: "Amen." That's how one should respond to a promise, not "all that the Lord has said, we will do."

Everything the people needed was included in the manifold promise God made to Abraham. When the people in their unbelief undertook a new covenant with God, they were attempting to establish their own righteousness. They were seeking a law/rules based religion. They felt they could be righteous by what they did or did not do. Many have this same misunderstanding today. The Old Covenant is not a matter of time, but of condition.

God, being the gracious and wise God that He is, accomodated their request and provided rules for them as well as a much more detailed sacrificial system. He did this so the people could clearly see they did not have the righteousness necessary to meet the demands of the Law, and also that they might learn more of the ministry of Christ.

If the people had believed that promise that God made to Abraham and repeated to them, a new covenant (the Old covenant) would never have been formalized. The people would have believed the manifold promise God made, and would have been justified by faith which is manifest by obedience to the law of God, just as Abraham was.

For your convenience, I'm reposting the Waggoner links:

http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT04RedeemedfromtheCurse.htm (read the paragraph titled, "The Covenants of Promise")

http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT05TheAdoptionofSons.htm (read the 4 consecutive sections "These are the Two Covenants" "The Two Covenants Parallel" "Difference Between the Two" "Mount Sinai and Mount Zion")

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 12/13/04 02:14 AM

Tom, is it not troubling to you that Waggoner's book Glad Tidings contains heretical pantheistic teaching? That, to me, disqualifies it as an authoritative source of truth. It was written in 1900, well after Waggoner's 'glory days' of 1888 and soon thereafter.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/13/04 03:38 AM

John, it might be troubling if I didn't know of what Waggoner's teachings were from the 1880's through 1900, as well as the hundreds of endorsements from EGW. Those who accuse Waggoner of pantheism are generally lazy and have no idea what he actually taught. They twist his teachings and make him an offender for a word.

Waggoner's teachings on the Covenants did not change one iota from the Sabbath School lessons in 1890 which EGW endorsed to what he presented in The Glad Tidings.

We have the following statement from the Spirit of Prophesy:

quote:
It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Elder Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God. (1888 Mat. 143)

There are those who for whatever reason (according to the Spirit of Prophesy, because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God) who simply do not wish to believe the light God has given us through His messengers Jones and Waggoner and will strain at whatever opportunity they have in order to do so. The Spirit of Prophesy labels this a "fatal delusion."

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 12/13/04 04:54 AM

quote:
Those who accuse Waggoner of pantheism are generally lazy and have no idea what he actually taught.

1) I don't have to 'accuse' Waggoner of teaching pantheism. It's an absolute undeniable fact that he taught pantheism, as early as 1900. I posted a quote from Glad Tidings earlier in this thread that is clearly pantheistic. Did you miss that? There are others that could be posted here as well.

2) I'm not lazy.

3) I have a real good idea what he taught, at various stages of his career. His and Jones' 1888 message of righteousness by faith was light directly from heaven. But some things they taught later on were not.

Are you trying to say that EGW endorsed a book, Glad Tidings, that contained pantheistic teaching? In view of all the warnings she gave about J.H. Kellogg's pantheistic book Living Temple, three years later?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/13/04 08:44 AM

She endorsed Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith. His teachings on righteousness by faith did not change in the Glad Tidings. They are the same as what he taught in 1888, in the Signs of the Times arcticles, in "Christ and His Righteousness" and the many other books he wrote, in "The Gospel in Galatians" which was passed out at the 1888 General Conference session, and the same as A. T. Jones taught.

If you're familiar with Waggoner's teachings, you will know that he did not intend for the passage you quoted to be taken literally. If you've read "The Everlasting Covenant" by him, you will know what his thinking was when he wrote what he did. This is what I'm talking about making him an offender for a word.

Here's what E. G. White wrote:

quote:
Man broke God's law, and through the Redeemer new and fresh promises were made on a different basis. All blessings must come through a Mediator. Now every member of the human family is given wholly into the hands of Christ, and whatever we possess--whether it is the gift of money, of houses, of lands, of reasoning powers, of physical strength, of intellectual talents--in this present life, and the blessings of the future life, are placed in our possession as God's treasures to be faithfully expended for the benefit of man. Every gift is stamped with the cross and bears the image and superscription of Jesus Christ. All things come of God. From the smallest benefits up to the largest blessing, all flow through the one Channel--a superhuman mediation sprinkled with the blood that is of value beyond estimate because it was the life of God in His Son.
(FW 22)

This is close to what Waggoner wrote, and clearly enunciates what Waggoner had in mind.

And all of this is irrelevant. If you are familiar with Waggoner's teachings, you know all of this already. What we were talking about was Waggoner's (and Jones, who taught the same thing) view of the Covenants. His ideas are clearly enunciated in The Glad Tidings, have not a scintila of pantheism in them, and are identical to what he taught on the subject during the time he was being enthusiastically endorsed by EGW, and in particular with the Sabbath School lessons that she specifically endorsed in 1890.

(BTW I didn't have you in mind with the "lazy" comment. A lot of people accuse Waggoner of pantheism without knowing what he actually taught. Pantheism is "the belief that all reality is essentially divine, i.e., that there is no distinction between the creator and the creation." This is not even close to what Waggoner taught.)

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/13/04 03:18 PM

Tom,
I'm not being able to reconcile Waggoner's view with EGW's writings. What is the covenant that EGW mentions God made with the israelites at Sinai?

"God graciously spoke his law and wrote it with his own finger on stone, making a solemn covenant with his people at Sinai. God acknowledged them as his peculiar treasure above all people upon the earth. Christ, who went before Moses in the wilderness, made the principles of morality and religion more clear by particular precepts, specifying the duty of man to God and his fellow-men, for the purpose of protecting life, and guarding the sacred law of God, that it should not be entirely forgotten in the midst of an apostate world." {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 14}

"The Lord made a covenant with Israel that, if they would obey His commandments, He would give them rain in due season, the land should yield her increase, and the trees of the field should yield their fruit. He promised that their threshing should reach unto the vintage and the vintage unto the sowingtime, and that they should eat their bread to the full and dwell in their land safely. He would make their enemies to perish. He would not abhor them, but would walk with them and would be their God, and they should be His people. But if they disregarded His requirements, He would deal with them entirely contrary to all this. His curse should rest upon them in place of His blessing. He would break their pride of power and would make the heavens over them as iron and the earth as brass. 'Your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits. And if ye walk contrary unto Me,' 'then will I also walk contrary unto you.'" {2T 661.1}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/14/04 08:22 AM

Roseangela, I'll be happy to answer your question as best I can, but would like to reiterate the following points:

1) E. G. White endorsed Waggoner's view, calling it "truth."
2) E. G. Whtie's view is also truth.
3) Therefore they must agree.

Pretty straightforward logic, isn't it? Waggoner's views are easy to follow and based on Scripture. The links I gave answer the questions you have been answering very clearly.

What happened at Sinai is that God reiterated the manifold promise He had made to Abraham which included all that was needed. It included:
a) an inheritance, which was land, the earth made new
b) everlasting life
c) the resurrection
d) righteousness
e) forgiveness of sins
f) God Himself
g) Christ

The people did not understand what God was saying. Because of their misunderstanding, they sought to establish their own righteousness. This is brought out in the PP chapter on the Law and the Covenants.

The people, because of their unbelief, desired a rules-based religion. The Lord, being gracious as He is, accomodate them with the hope that they would return to the manifold promise He had made with Abraham. This is also brought out in the same PP chapter.

The Lord specified rules, and also laid out in more detail the sacrificial system. Because of the Lord's hand, there is much good about the Old Covenant. However, it is faulty because it is based on inferior promises. What are these inferior promises? The promises of the Lord? No way! His promises are always perfect and cannot be improved on. The inferior promises were the promises of the people. It is also these inferior promises that lead to bondage, as a system of works-rightouesness always does. Paul discusses this in great detail in Galatians.

The confusing thing is that there were two covenants going on at Sinai. There is the Everlasting Covenant, which Abraham believed, and is the only Covenant by which righteousness can be found, which is by faith in Christ. This is also brought out in the PP chapter. There is also the Old Covenant going on. So when EGW makes statements about the Covenant at Sinai, we need to determine from the context which Covenant she is talking about.

I hope this helps.

I'd like to ask you a question. I take it from you comments that you have read Waggoner's teaching on the covenants. Do you not find it beautiful? I do. And elegant as well. Well might she have described it as "clear and convincing." I know of noone who has ever taught it as clearly as he has.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: The Covenants - 12/14/04 10:39 AM

The one aspect that must be more highlighted is Tom's quote, "The inferior promises were the promises of the people."

What inferior promises? Here, I see it:

Exodus 19:8 "And all the people answered together, and said, 'All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.'

Now if as Adventists we know that we cannot keep the Ten Commandments in our own strength, if we cannot do right without being born again and having Christ working through us with His mind and heart, than this pitiful and misguided human "promise" of the Jews at Sinai is a prideful boast at least, a paganistic legalism at worst.

God knew very well that they couldn't keep this promise, but took what He could from them (as a human father would take his kindergartener's fingerpainting "artwork") with the idea of educating them further in time.

Don't forget: the Hebrew nation had been under a slavery in the most horrificly sadistic and occult civilization of all time, up to that point in post-Flood history. Ancient Egypt, if one studies it with Bible-eyes, would make Nazism look like a picnic! The Jews were mentally lower than post Civil War slaves, beaten up by Satan almost beyond recognition.

[ December 14, 2004, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: Ikan ]

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/14/04 03:57 PM

Tom,

What you seem to be saying is that God made the new covenant with Israel, but since they desired a rules-based religion, He specified some rules so that they could make a covenant with Him based on these? Am I understanding it correctly?
Such a position (if I'm understanding it correctly) would hardly make sense to me.
I took the time to read again (I had already done so in the past) the two links you provided and verified that Waggoner and Ellen White do say many things in common, and in fact I see in Waggoner’s writings the same difficulties I see in EGW’s definition of the covenants.
You interpret Waggoner as saying that the people initiated the old covenant based on rules that God specified. One of the main problems I see with this is God ratifying a salvation-by-works covenant. Church theologians, also claiming to be based on Waggoner, say that the problem was not with the covenant (which was the new covenant or covenant of grace), but with the Israelites’ response (which transformed it in the old covenant or covenant of works). One of the main problems I see with this is that both the Bible and Ellen White make a clear distinction between the covenant of grace and the covenant made at Sinai.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/14/04 10:08 PM

Roseangela, let's stick with Waggoner for a bit. Are there any things about his presentation that aren't clear? If so, please post a little snip and ask a question, and we can discuss it. Thanks.

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 12/15/04 12:28 AM

I'm seeing a problem here, that we're being asked to interpret EGW through the lens of what Waggoner taught. It should be the other way around. EGW's writings are inspired, not Waggoner's. The passages Rosangela posted above show *very* clearly, if English language can have any clear meaning at all, that God initiated the Old Covenant with the children of Israel. I don't know how it could be stated any plainer by words put on paper. (Or computer screens, as the case may be!)

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/15/04 08:43 AM

If God tells us through His prophet that He has given us a message, shouldn't we heed the prophet?

quote:
The message given us by A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean church, and woe be unto anyone who professes to believe the truth and yet does not reflect to others the God-given rays. (1888 Mat. 1052)

The message God gave to Jones and Waggoner was given to Jones and Waggoner. If we want to avoid the "woe" mentioned, we need to go to Jones and Waggoner, to whom God gave the message.

God gave truth to E. G. White, but He did not limit Himself to her as the only source by which He would communicate truth to the world. God has told us as clearly as can be told that he gave a message to Jones and Waggoner. This is hardly a "problem."

She stated herself that God gave them a message and a gift He did not give to her. She stated that they could teach righteousness by faith more clearly than she could. She said she would be as a little child to gather up all the rays of light that God had to give.

Posted By: John H.

Re: The Covenants - 12/15/04 09:24 AM

The problem there is, that you're misconstruing the message God gave to Jones and Waggoner; taking it beyond what it actually was, and carrying EGW's endorsement into areas where it was never intended to go.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/15/04 04:40 PM

Tom,

What Waggoner says is:

“’Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?’--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. … So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, ‘Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.’ Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.”

You interpret this as meaning that the people initiated the covenant, but does the text really need to be interpreted in that way, or he is just saying that the response of the people was wrong?

What I see in EGW’s writings is that God initiated the covenant (that one that was ratified), and the people just accepted it. This is what Waggoner must be saying in order to be in agreement with EGW.
“Bravely did the Israelites speak the words promising obedience to the Lord, after hearing His covenant read in the audience of the people. They said, ‘All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient’ (Exodus 24:7). Then the people were set apart and sealed to God. A sacrifice was offered to the Lord. A portion of the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled upon the altar. This signified that the people had consecrated themselves-- body, mind, and soul--to God. A portion was sprinkled upon the people. This signified that through the sprinkled blood of Christ, God graciously accepted them as His special treasure. Thus the Israelites entered into a solemn covenant with God.” Ms 126, 1901, pp. 15-17. ("The Giving of the Law," December 10, 1901.) {1MR 115.1}
“[Exodus 24:4-8 quoted]. Here the people received the conditions of the covenant. They made a solemn covenant with God, typifying the covenant made between God and every believer in Jesus Christ. The conditions were plainly laid before the people. They were not left to misunderstand them. When they were requested to decide whether they would agree to all the conditions given, they unanimously consented to obey every obligation. They had already consented to obey God's commandments. The principles of the law were now particularized, that they might know how much was involved in covenanting to obey the law; and they accepted the specifically defined particulars of the law.” {1MR 114.2}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/15/04 10:36 PM

"The problem there is, that you're misconstruing the message God gave to Jones and Waggoner; taking it beyond what it actually was, and carrying EGW's endorsement into areas where it was never intended to go."

How do you figure that, John? She endorsed their message over a thousand times, in the strongest possible language. She specifically endorsed Waggoner's teaching on the Covenants, the subject on this thread, calling it "truth" and "clear and convincing" and said those who opposed this teaching as "wasting their investigative powers."

How could she have endorsed this any more clearly?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/15/04 10:52 PM

Rose: (is that ok?)

In Ex. 19, God spoke to the COI of the covenant He had established with Abraham, the everlasting covenant, which had everything the people needed. The did not understand this, and, seeking to establish their own righteousness, they made promises to God when God was intending that the believe His promises to them. I hope this makes sense so far. This is what Waggoner was saying, and EGW too in PP.

In Ex. 24 the people had already responded negatively to the Everlasting Covenant, so God gave them a Covenant along the lines they had in mind, which He graciously called His Covenant.

The confusion is coming in mixing up what happened in Ex. 24 with what happened in Ex. 19.

Regarding Waggoner's comments

quote:
"’Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?’--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. … So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, ‘Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.’ Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.”

1. God did not lead the people in bondage (which the Old Covenant does)
2. God did not induce the people to make the covenant they made with Him ("induce" is parallel to "initiate")
3. The Covenant with Abraham had everything the people needed.
4. There was no need for another covenant (since it was sufficient for all purposes)
5. God referred to the Covenant He had made with Abraham.
6. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary.

Again, Waggoner is being very clear here. I think if you bear in mind that the circumstances were different in Ex. 24 and Ex. 19 that will help clear things up.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/16/04 04:35 PM

Tom,

Sorry for this long post, but I there were some EGW extracts I wanted to quote in full.

I used to think that there was a difference between the covenant of Ex. 19 and the covenant of Ex. 24, but I’m no longer sure of this. The covenant seems to be one and the same: obedience to the law brings eternal life and all the other blessings.

quote:
“When the Lord gave His law to the children of Israel encamped at the foot of Mount Sinai, the people with one accord promised, ‘All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient’ (Exodus 24:7). In return for their loyalty, the Lord promised to bring them safely into the promised land and to prosper them above all nations. … During the forty years of wilderness wandering, the Lord was true to the covenant He had made with His people. Those who were obedient to Him received the promised blessings. And this covenant is still in force. Through obedience we can receive heaven's richest blessings. {1MR 311, 312}

Since the new (abrahamic) covenant was in force at the time of the COI, there was really no need to make another covenant. But the COI had lost the knowledge of the principles of this covenant. So God made another covenant with them to teach them, in simple terms, what the abrahamic covenant (salvation by faith) was all about. He wanted to teach them about their sinfulness and their need of a Savior. He gave them the tangible, so that they could understand the intangible – the law in stone, so that they could achieve the experience of the law in the heart through an indwelling Savior; the sacrifices, so that they could understand that the Savior’s sacrifice would provide forgiveness for their sins. The problem was that they became attached to the tangible and to the letter – which could never save – and never discerned in them the Savior, who was their only hope. They never discerned that it was impossible for them to perfectly obey the law and that therefore they were under its curse and thus condemned to death.

quote:
The holy law of God is both brief and comprehensive; for it is easily understood and remembered; and yet it is an expression of the will of God. Its comprehensiveness is summed up in the following words: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. . . . Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." "This do, and thou shalt live." "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.". . . If the transgressor is to be treated according to the letter of this covenant, then there is no hope for the fallen race; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. The fallen race of Adam can behold nothing else in the letter of this covenant than the ministration of death; and death will be the reward of everyone who is seeking vainly to fashion a righteousness of his own that will fulfill the claims of the law. (ST Sept. 5, 1892). {6BC 1095.4}

quote:
He [Paul] says, "If the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away; how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory." 2 Cor. 3:7-9.
The law of God given in awful grandeur from Sinai was the utterance of condemnation to the sinner. The transgressor died without mercy. The proclamation of that law and the repetition of it in the holy mount was so sacred and so glorious that upon the face of Moses was reflected a glory which the people could not look upon without pain, so that Moses covered his face with a veil.
"Much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth." Verses 9, 10. It is the province of the law to condemn, but there is no power in the law to pardon. The glory that shone upon the face of Moses was the righteousness of Christ in the law. He saw to the end of that which was to be abolished when type should meet antitype in Jesus Christ. In consequence of the transgression of the law of God, death was introduced into the world. The slain lamb typified the Lamb of God that was to take away the sin of the world. The full significance of the typical offerings pointing to Christ was unfolded to Moses. Death came in consequence of sin. Sin was the transgression of the law. Christ revealed in the gospel was the propitiation for men's sins, the transgression of the law. His perfection of character was placed in man's behalf. The curse of the law Christ took upon Himself. It was the seeing to the end of that which was to be abolished, that which brought to light the plan of salvation in Christ, -- it was this that illuminated the face of Moses.
If the typical sacrifices which were done away were glorious because Christ was revealed by them as the sin-pardoning Saviour, much more that which remains is glorious. The moral law was bondage and death to those who remained under its condemnation. The law was ordained to life, that those who were obedient, walking in harmony with its claims, should have the reward of the faithful--eternal life.
Moses saw that only through Jesus Christ could man keep the law of God. Paul says, "The commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death" (Rom. 7:10), death to the sinner. The types and ceremonies, with the prophecies, gave ancient believers a veiled or indistinct discovery of the mercy and grace to be brought to light through the revelation of Jesus Christ to our world. The law itself would have no glory were it not that Christ is embodied in it. The revelation of Jesus Christ cast its glory back into the Jewish age. The law had no power to save. It was lustreless, only as Christ was represented in the law as the One full of righteousness and truth.
And when Christ was revealed in His advent to our world, and died man's sacrifice, type met antitype. Then the glory of that which is not typical, not to be done away, but which remaineth, God's law of ten commandments, the standard of righteousness, was plainly discerned as immutable by all who saw to the end of that which was abolished.
Paul would have his brethren discern that Christ, pointed out in types and shadows, had come, and the greater glory of a sin-pardoning Saviour gave significance to the entire Jewish economy. Without Christ, the law of itself was only condemnation and death to the transgressor. It has no saving quality,--no power to shield the transgressor from its penalty. The full penalty of the law will be executed upon the transgressor if he does not receive Christ as his atoning sacrifice and personal Saviour. {BEcho, August 4, 1902}

quote:
Without the grace of Christ it is impossible to take one step in obedience to the law of God. … Without Christ there can be only condemnation and a fearful looking for a fiery indignation, and final separation from the presence of God. {1SM 371.2}

quote:
In Christ we are as if we had suffered the penalty we have incurred. In Christ I am as if I had obeyed, and rendered perfect obedience to the law, which we can not perfectly obey without Christ imparts to us His merits and His righteousness. {PUR, September 4, 1913 par. 3}

Posted By: vastergotland

Re: The Covenants - 12/16/04 06:48 PM

What does this all mean I wonder while reading your different posts...

quote:

Galatians 4
8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9But now that you know God–or rather are known by God–how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

12I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. You have done me no wrong. 13As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you. 14Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. 15What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. 16Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

17Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them. 18It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you. 19My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!
21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written: “Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”[b]

28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does the Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.”[c] 31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Galatians 5

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

7You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9“A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
Life by the Spirit
16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and selfcontrol. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

/Thomas

Posted By: Daryl

Re: The Covenants - 12/16/04 06:50 PM

I really appreciated this from Rosangela's last post here:

quote:

Since the new (abrahamic) covenant was in force at the time of the COI, there was really no need to make another covenant. But the COI had lost the knowledge of the principles of this covenant. So God made another covenant with them to teach them, in simple terms, what the abrahamic covenant (salvation by faith) was all about. He wanted to teach them about their sinfulness and their need of a Savior. He gave them the tangible, so that they could understand the intangible – the law in stone, so that they could achieve the experience of the law in the heart through an indwelling Savior; the sacrifices, so that they could understand that the Savior’s sacrifice would provide forgiveness for their sins. The problem was that they became attached to the tangible and to the letter – which could never save – and never discerned in them the Savior, who was their only hope. They never discerned that it was impossible for them to perfectly obey the law and that therefore they were under its curse and thus condemned to death.

The fault wasn't in any of "the covenants."

The fault was, and still is, in the people, even with the New Covenant, as people today do not even understand the workings of the New Covenant.

Why do so many people not have the assurance of salvation? It is because they do not really understand the New Covenant.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/17/04 04:02 AM

Rose: Since the new (abrahamic) covenant was in force at the time of the COI, there was really no need to make another covenant. But the COI had lost the knowledge of the principles of this covenant.

Tom: This is demonstrated by their response when God proclaimed His covenant (the everlasting Covenant) to them.

Rose: So God made another covenant with them to teach them, in simple terms, what the abrahamic covenant (salvation by faith) was all about. He wanted to teach them about their sinfulness and their need of a Savior. He gave them the tangible, so that they could understand the intangible – the law in stone, so that they could achieve the experience of the law in the heart through an indwelling Savior; the sacrifices, so that they could understand that the Savior’s sacrifice would provide forgiveness for their sins. The problem was that they became attached to the tangible and to the letter – which could never save – and never discerned in them the Savior, who was their only hope. They never discerned that it was impossible for them to perfectly obey the law and that therefore they were under its curse and thus condemned to death.

Tom: I think what you wrote here is very good, as long as we understand that it was the people who initiated the Covenant, and not God. That is, God "made" a Covenant with them in the sense that he agreed to what they wanted, which was a rules-based system. It was not God's intention to give them a rules-based system, since He knew that would never work. But if they wanted a rules-based system, He would give them the best possible rules-based system.

Remember that the Old Covenant:
1) Leads to bondage
2) It is based on faulty promises
3) It is a system of works-rightoueness

These three points bear out that it was not initiated by God.

Another point to keep in mind which has not been addressed I don't think, although I've made it repeatedly, God proclaimed the same Covenant to Jeremiah as He did to the COI. Jeremiah understood that God was speaking a promise to him and responded appropriately, "Amen!" (This is also how Abraham responded. "Amen" in the Hebrew means "I believe.")

Also a couple of EGW quotes relating to the 10 commandments:

quote:
"The ten commandments, Thou shalt, and Thou shalt not, are ten promises, assured to us if we render obedience to the law governing the universe" (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1, p. 1105).

quote:
"There is not a negative in that law, although it may appear thus. It is DO and live" (idem).

quote:
"The terms of the 'old covenant' were, obey and live. . . . The ‘new covenant" was established upon ‘better promises'—the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 372)

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/17/04 01:48 PM

Tom, you said

quote:
Remember that the Old Covenant:
1) Leads to bondage
2) It is based on faulty promises
3) It is a system of works-rightoueness

These three points bear out that it was not initiated by God.

I agree with the three points, but not with the conclusion. The three points are a result of the pervertion of the covenant by the people.

What are the "rules" on which the old covenant is based? The ten commandments.

What are the terms of the covenant? "Obey and live."

Does this lead to bondage? Yes, if you are without a Savior. "As a result of Adam's disobedience, every human being is a transgressor of the law, sold under sin. Unless he repents and is converted, he is under bondage to the law. ... But by perfect obedience to the requirements of the law, man is justified. Only through faith in Christ is such obedience possible.{ST, July 23, 1902}
"When man transgresses he is under the condemnation of the law, and it becomes to him a yoke of bondage" {ML 250}.
To be under the condemnation of the law is to be under bondage, and whoever is without a Savior is under the condemnation of the law.

Is this ("obey and live") a faulty promise? Yes, if it is not accompanied by the promise of a Savior (which is part of the abrahamic covenant, not of the old covenant). Since in our sinful nature we can't obey, we aren't entitled to life, but to death.

Is it a system of works-righteousness? Yes, if you try to obey in order to obtain righteousness and life. Only a Savior could obey the law perfectly and then give you righteousness and life.
"Under the new covenant, the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old--perfect obedience. ... In the new and better covenant, Christ has fulfilled the law for the transgressors of law, if they receive Him by faith as a personal Saviour."{AG 136}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/17/04 11:44 PM

If "obey and live" is understood correctly, it is simply the New Covenant. It is rightouesness by faith. It this case, there is no other covenant.

What you wrote is very close to correct. God did initiate an "obey and live" covenant. The covenant He initiated was the Covenant He made with Abraham. The people perveted God's covenant, and then everything else is as you said.

Take a look at "The Principle of the Old Covenant." I think that may help our communication.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/19/04 03:41 PM

Tom,

“Obey and live” are the terms of both the old and the new covenant:

"Under the new covenant the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old--perfect obedience" (That I May Know Him, 299).

In fact, this is the very condition God presented to Adam in Eden. It was a condition applicable then, since Adam had a perfect, holy nature. He could obey and live. He could obtain eternal life by obedience. We can’t, since ours is a sinful nature. Therefore, after the fall this condition had to be accompanied by the promise of a Savior.

The main difference between the old and the new covenant is that the old covenant does not contain the promise of the Savior, exactly because its purpose was just to lead the israelites back to the new covenant. God’s purpose was that when they felt condemned by the law, they would understand, through the sacrificial offerings, that they needed a Savior, and then they would seek this Savior through the promise of the abrahamic covenant. The problem is that they never discerned this, and were attached both to the moral and to the ceremonial laws, neither of which could save them.

As to the old covenant, it was God who established its rules, conditions and blessings; He ratified the covenant; therefore I can’t see how it can be said that the people initiated the covenant. Besides, I can’t see why God would submit Himself to a covenant initiated by human beings, much less to a works-based covenant. What you seem to be saying is that God made a covenant with the people (the new) with which the people did not agree, and the people made a covenant with God (the old) with which God did not agree. Therefore there would have been no agreement at all but, contrarily to Waggoner, Ellen White says that a covenant is a mutual agreement _ God establishes the conditions and man must agree with them:

“A covenant is an agreement by which parties bind themselves and each other to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus the human agent enters into agreement with God to comply with the conditions specified in His Word. His conduct shows whether or not he respects these conditions. Man gains everything by obeying the covenant-keeping God. God's attributes are imparted to man, enabling him to exercise mercy and compassion. God's covenant assures us of His unchangeable character. . . . We must know for ourselves what His requirements and our obligations are. The terms of God's covenant are, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." These are the conditions of life. "This do," Christ said, "and thou shalt live" (Luke 10:27, 28). {AG 158}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/20/04 02:58 AM

I spent about an hour responding to your post. Unfortunately this forum lost my post when I inadvertanly hit some key. I suppose I should have saved it. I'll respond again, but unfortunately is far less detail.

This is really upsetting. I've had this problem here before. I guess I'll just have to remember to fashion a response elsewhere and copy and paste it here, so I don't give it a chance to lose it.

The short response is that it is impossible that God initiated the Old Testament, which leads to bondage and is based on faulty promises. How could God initiate something which leads to bondage? It's contrary to His character.

OTOH is is according to God's character to graciously follow our inclinations even when they are misgiven. For example
a) The COI wanted flesh, so God obliged.
b) They wanted multiple wives. God obliged.
c) They wanted to divorce their wives. God obliged.
d) They wanted a king. God obliged.
e) They wanted the Old Covenant. God obliged.

Finally I'll point out that it is impossible that Ellen White actually agreed with the position of those who opposed Waggoner on the covenants and disagreed with Waggoner. This is so obvious it amazes me that this needs to be pointed out. She wrote:

quote:
I stand in perfect freedom, calling light, light, and darkness, darkness. I told them yesterday that the position of the covenants I believed as presented in my volume 1 [ Patriarchs and Prophets ]. If that was Dr. Waggoner's position then he had the truth.

Shortly after this she stated that Waggoner's position was "truth," showing that she understood it was in harmony with hers. That's clear, is it not?

She called Waggoner's position "clear and convincing" and said those who were seeking to oppose his views were "wasting their investagative powers." The same thing is true today.

quote:
The ten commandments, Thou shalt, and Thou shalt not, are ten promises, assured to us if we render obedience to the law governing the universe" (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1, p. 1105).

There is not a negative in that law, although it may appear thus. It is DO and live (idem).

The terms of the "old covenant" were, obey and live. . . . The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"—the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law (PP 372)

This is in harmony with what Waggoner taught.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 12/20/04 02:22 PM

Tom,
It seems clear that our only, or main, apple of discord is who initiated the covenant.
What I see is that, in her endorsement of Waggoner’s view, Ellen White mentions specifically the position on the law:

“Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented… The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind, but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light because you were afraid that the law question in Galatians would have to be accepted. As to the law in Galatians, I have no burden and never have had.” --Letter 59, 1890, p. 6. (To Uriah Smith, March 8, 1890.) {9MR 329.1}

This, IMO, does not necessarily mean that she had to be in agreement with Waggoner in every detail of what he presented about the subject. The first point on which I can’t find agreement between them is the definition of covenant. While Waggoner says that

quote:
God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them. … It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things." But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part.

Ellen White says that

quote:
A covenant is an agreement by which parties bind themselves and each other to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus the human agent enters into agreement with God to comply with the conditions specified in His Word. His conduct shows whether or not he respects these conditions. Man gains everything by obeying the covenant-keeping God. God's attributes are imparted to man, enabling him to exercise mercy and compassion. God's covenant assures us of His unchangeable character. . . . We must know for ourselves what His requirements and our obligations are.

Another important point is that I can find no statement in EGW’s writings saying that the people initiated the covenant. She says, rather, that the covenant which was ratified, that is, the old covenant, was God’s covenant, and that the people just consented to obey the conditions or obligations of the covenant (see my post of December 15, 2004 09:40 AM).
On this basis my present position is that God initiated the covenant.
I am leaving on vacation today, so I won’t be able to participate regularly for some time (perhaps I have a chance to participate occasionally), but I want to thank you for the great discussion. I liked this forum very much and I look forward to participate in other discussions here.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/21/04 08:19 PM

quote:
This, IMO, does not necessarily mean that she had to be in agreement with Waggoner in every detail of what he presented about the subject. The first point on which I can’t find agreement between them is the definition of covenant.

It is true that there might theoretically be some point of Waggoner's view of the Covenants that could be off, but given EGW's ringing endorsements, "truth," "clear and convincing," "wasting investigative powers to come up with a contrary view" etc., the burden of proof is upon those who would have a contrary view.

In particular, one would need to understand what the issues were in 1890. How were the views of Waggoner different than the view of those opposing him? When EGW said Waggoner was right, and those opposing him were wrong, certainly on that point Waggoner would have to be understood as being correct. Otherwise EGW's endorsements were non-sensical.

So the question I would ask you is, on what point of contention between those opposing Waggoner and Waggoner do you see EGW as endorsing Waggoner? IOW, what was it about Waggoner's view that she was endorsing?

I presented in another thread what I believe the answer to that question is.

Posted By: Daryl

Re: The Covenants - 06/30/08 01:32 AM

As there is an ongoing similar topic in the New Light forum, I am bumping this one.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 06/30/08 05:39 PM

This is a great discussion, but I feel that at times we are so concerned about the differences between theologians and prophets that we tend to over look the simple story in the Bible.

The giving of the Old Covenant, starting in Exodus 19, is very self explanatory. God saves Israel from Egypt, delivers them through the Red sea, saves them from thirst by giving water from a rock, saves them from hunger by giving them manna from heaven, saves them from the snakes, the heat, the drought, the desert, and then comes and asks them if they want to be His “special people”.

The terms of the OC were not about salvation. God already saved Israel. Israel was saved by God fulfilling His promise to Abraham. The OC was God asking Israel to be a special people and carry the seed of the Messiah, along with all the compacted prophecies concerning Him, that are found in the Sanctuary, Priesthood, Feasts, sacrifices, and ceremonies, down through the ages and deliver God’s Messiah to the world for a Savior.

Remember that these ceremonies were the very teaching tool that God used to train Jesus young mind to know what His role was in Salvation.

God was asking Israel to be the context for the Messiah that would save the world. This is the Old Covenant! And Israel agreed thinking God chose them because they were special rather than God would make them special.

scott

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 06/30/08 06:26 PM

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 06/30/08 10:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Hi MM,

I believe that Tom’s point is that the COI entered a covenant believing they could keep it and secure a better position with God. Even if the covenant was God’s idea, which I believe it was, it wasn’t God’s intention to offer Israel a covenant where their righteousness would gain them favor with God. His intention was to make them happy and prosperous in front of the whole world as a witness to His goodness.

They were to be God’s evangelists. They misunderstood this and believed that God wanted them to keep the law to earn salvation. So the covenant that God offered wasn’t the one they agreed to. The problem was in their mind!

scott

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 06/30/08 10:58 PM

I think God offered them the same covenant He offered to Abraham, but they misunderstood His gracious promises as a bunch of rules they should keep in order to try to be good enough to make God happy. Rather than believe God's promises to make them good (i.e. remake them in the image of Christ), they undertook to promise to be good themselves.

Paul speaks of the OC in very negative terms. I have trouble understanding how God would have created something which would have these negative characteristics.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 06/30/08 11:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall

Hi Tom,

But if God’s intent was simply asking them to carry the seed of the Messiah and the prophetic evidence of Christ down through the ages and deliver it to the world then the only negative thing is their misunderstanding. Paul makes it clear that the problem was not with the law, but with Israel’s understanding of the law. He concludes that the law, that was done away with, is just and good.

If God were to look down today and ask us if we wanted to represent Him what would we say? What if we said yes so He gave us a health message so that we could be an example of health to the nations? What if He gave us instructions on how we could treat each other better and get along better so that we could represent Him better? What if He entrusted us with truth about His character that we were to carry to the end of time? What if He sent us prophets periodically to keep us on the right track?

What if we got so far off His purpose that He had to choose another group of people to represent Him?

What if we thought that God chose us because we were special and better than everyone else rather than because He wanted to use our physical, mental, and spiritual health as a witness of His goodness?

scott

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 06/30/08 11:54 PM

I think what happened is that God made chicken soup out of chicken droppings. He wanted to do the same thing with them as He did with Abraham, but they weren't willing. But God, being God, was able to give them all sorts of good things.

The negativity that Paul expresses I think derives from their mind set, which was their desire to do the things (of themselves, by their own initiative and power) which God had promised them. Had they simply believed God's promise to them, as Abraham did, the negativity would have been avoided, and there wouldn't have been an Old Covenant. Instead (assuming they continued along the same vein) the Messiah would have come and the whole mess of sin would have been taken care long ago.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/01/08 12:27 AM

I agree! Had they seen the covenant in the right light they would have accepted Jesus and the Christian church would have been added to Israel of the flesh. They would have shut down the sacrifice, feast, ceremonies, and priesthood realizing that Jesus fulfilled them all. Israel would be overflowing with men beating there swords in to plowshares and spears into pruning hooks and we would learn war no more.

scott

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/01/08 12:46 AM

Quote:

They would have shut down the sacrifice, feast, ceremonies, and priesthood realizing that Jesus fulfilled them all.

Most of this they wouldn't even have had, right?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/01/08 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: scott

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

What do you think they were agreeing to if not to obey the laws of God?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/01/08 05:40 PM

Quote:

S: But if God’s intent was simply asking them to carry the seed of the Messiah and the prophetic evidence of Christ down through the ages and deliver it to the world then the only negative thing is their misunderstanding. Paul makes it clear that the problem was not with the law, but with Israel’s understanding of the law. He concludes that the law, that was done away with, is just and good.

TE: I think what happened is that God made chicken soup out of chicken droppings.

I'm sorry, Tom, but I have to agree with Scott. God gave the COI a Covenant, which included the Law of Moses, as a blessing and benefit. Their unwillingness to cooperate with God to fulfill it in His strength is why they failed to honor and glorify Him. The conditions they were supposed to comply with (see quote above) were holy, just, and good - not a result of God compromising and accommodating their sinfulness.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/01/08 07:04 PM

Quote:

God gave the COI a Covenant, which included the Law of Moses, as a blessing and benefit.

I agree with this.

Quote:

Their unwillingness to cooperate with God to fulfill it in His strength is why they failed to honor and glorify Him.

I agree with this too.

Quote:

The conditions they were supposed to comply with (see quote above) were holy, just, and good - not a result of God compromising and accommodating their sinfulness.

I agree with this too.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/02/08 09:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: scott

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

What do you think they were agreeing to if not to obey the laws of God?

I think they believed that God was offering them a higher position on earth than any other man. They thought God was going to cause the world to serve them, but God was asking them to serve the world! They agreed to God’s terms totally misunderstanding God’s character. Had they known God they would have know that the greatest in His kingdom is the greatest servant of all.

Had they understood this they would have bowed before God and cried, “This is impossible for us Lord! We believe, but save us from our unbelief. We don’t know how to be slaves willingly. We’ve been forced to serve for 400 years and we hate our masters. How can we serve with love in our hearts for our enemies? Save us Lord!”

I really believe that had the COI understood what God was asking them they would have declined! God would have immediately given them the New Covenant written in Jerimiah 31 because their hearts were humble and the bible would have been written much differently as far as Israel goes.

scott

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/02/08 07:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall

Quote:

God gave the COI a Covenant, which included the Law of Moses, as a blessing and benefit.

I agree with this.

Quote:

Their unwillingness to cooperate with God to fulfill it in His strength is why they failed to honor and glorify Him.

I agree with this too.

Quote:

Quote:

Most people have focused in on the wrong point with these statements in Paul. I would like to give this challenge:

Prove your view regarding the two covenants without Paul.

As I explained in the previous post, I disagree with the idea that Paul was not balanced. However, people do twist Paul to say all kinds of weird things, and I've made the same challenge to others, so I accept!

From Jeremiah:

Quote:

[31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
[32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
[33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer. 31:31-34)

Jeremiah spoke of a "new" covenant in which the law would be written in the heart. The existence of a "new" covenant presupposes the existence of an old. What was the "new" covenant? It was simply the covenant made with Abraham, a covenant which included everything needed, including:

a)an inheritance of land, even the earth made new
b)righteousness
c)the resurrection
d)eternal life
e)Christ Himself

That Christ Himself was promised is evident from Abraham's being told "I am thy exceeding great reward." (Gen. 15:1)

That the land promised to Abraham was not the earthly Canaan is evident by Stephen:

Quote:

[3] And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
[4] Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
[5]And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. (Acts 7)

This makes clear what it wasn't. Peter makes clear what it was:

Quote:

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (2 Pet. 3:13)

This makes clear that the promised land is the new earth, and that it is a land of righteousness.

So it is clear that the promise (or covenant) made to Abraham included everything that Abraham, or any other man, could want or need. Why then was a different covenant made with Israel at Sinai?

Quote:

O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! (Deut. 5:29)

When the Lord offered them the same promises that He made to Abraham, they misunderstood God as wanting to do something in order to make themselves righteous, as opposed to receiving the righteousness of God as a free gift to be received by faith in Christ as did Abraham. They had a heart problem, which Deut 5, and Jeremiah spells out. Of course Jesus Christ spent a great deal of His ministry dealing with this heart problem.

To summarize:

a)God originally presented to the Israelites the same covenant He made with Abraham.
b)That covenant would have been sufficient for all their needs, being based on justification by faith and having the law written in the heart.
c)They rejected that covenant.
d)God entered into a different covenant with Israel, based on different principles, which had the law written on tablets of stone as opposed to being written on the heart.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/04/08 07:23 PM

Quote:

I don't consider Waggoner to have been fully correct in all of his ideas.

Yes, it seems you have ideas quite different than Waggoner's. It seems to me that Waggoner's ideas were correct during the time when EGW was endorsing him.

Quote:

It is rather unfortunate, but when the church rejected a message God had inspired him to give, he later apostatized, and rejected the truth.

EGW has something interesting to say about that:

Quote:

It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God. They walk in the sparks of their own kindling, and cannot distinguish between the fire they have kindled and the light which God has given, and they walk in blindness as did the Jews. (1888 Mat. 1044)

Quote:

I agree that Waggoner had much truth to share with the church at one point, but I don't know what point in time he may have written the statement you quote, nor whether this should represent the views of everyone, or of Mrs. White at that time.

The statement I quoted was written in 1895, which is during the time that EGW was endorsing him.

Quote:

In other words, I don't agree.

Clearly, since you believe Paul was not balanced.

Quote:

I believe there are four gospels for a reason. We would not get as complete a picture if there had been but one. Having four provides balance. I do not mean to say any one of them is wrong. But I do mean to say that not a one of them saw the full picture.

I agree with this. However, saying that someone is not balanced is not the same thing as saying such a one did not have the entire picture.

Quote:

There is one book in the New Testament which puts balance to Paul. We can be very thankful for that little book! If it were not for James, I should be lost in confusion right now myself.

The only way it seems possible to me that you could write this is by not understanding what Paul was saying. Waggoner's explanation of what Paul said seems to me spot on. To requote just a portion:

Quote:

Faith makes a man a doer of the law, for that is the meaning of the term "justification by faith." So in James we read that the works of Abraham simply showed the perfection of his faith. "And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." The apostle James, therefore, teaches the same kind of justification that Paul does. If he did not, one or the other or both of them would be discredited as apostles. Justification by faith which works is the only kind of justification known in the Bible.

Is there something about this with which you disagree?

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/04/08 07:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall

Quote:

Most people have focused in on the wrong point with these statements in Paul. I would like to give this challenge:

Prove your view regarding the two covenants without Paul.

Quote:

This makes clear what it wasn't. Peter makes clear what it was:

Quote:

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (2 Pet. 3:13)

This makes clear that the promised land is the new earth, and that it is a land of righteousness.

Up to this point, I am largely in agreement with everything you've said.

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall

So it is clear that the promise (or covenant) made to Abraham included everything that Abraham, or any other man, could want or need. Why then was a different covenant made with Israel at Sinai?

Quote:

O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! (Deut. 5:29)

At this point, I differ. God did not enter into a different covenant with Israel, based on "different principles, which had the law written on tablets of stone." I see that you are trying to make the point that writing on the heart is better than on stone. That's the only part of this I'll agree with. The principles themselves are not different. They are the same.

Originally Posted By: Holy Bible

And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Exodus 34:28, KJV)

And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. (Deuteronomy 4:13, KJV)

These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. (Deuteronomy 29:1, KJV)

To understand that last verse, it is helpful to read the chapters preceding it. It is essentially a reiteration, with more detail, of the same covenant God had made with them earlier, and the text is noting the fact that the covenant was given at a separate time and place.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/04/08 07:30 PM

Regarding the covenants, here's something by Waggoner:

Quote:

That the covenant and promise of God are one and the same thing, is clearly seen from Gal.3:17, where it appears that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of Canaan--and with it the whole world--for an everlasting possession; but Gal.3:18 says that God gave it to him by promise. God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Rom.11:35,36. It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things." But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part. After the flood God made a covenant with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Gen.9:9-16. They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do. God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing, and He gives us Himself, that is, everything. That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all, they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be a "mutual" affair--a transaction in which they will be considered as on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything, and gives everything. (The Glad Tidings)

A wonderful passage!

This demonstrates that the Covenant of God is a promise, to be received by faith. If one wishes to view that covenant as something in which God has something to do, and we have something to do, the thing which we have to do is to receive His promises by faith.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/04/08 07:36 PM

Quote:

Having the law written on stone versus in the heart is precisely depicting the different principles. The principle depicted by having the law written in the heart is justification by faith. Having the law written n stone depicts the principle f one attempting to establish one's own righteousness.

Jeremiah speaks of two covenants, one written on stone, and one written n the heart. Not just one covenant, but two, one old (implicitly) and the other new (explicit).

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/04/08 07:59 PM

Hi Tom,

I think you are wasting your breath on GC. You two obviously don't agree on who has authority. GC refuses to consider Paul and Waggoner when they disagree with his theology.

The fact is that Paul is the only systematic theology we have on the Old and New Covenants. Throw him out and one can believe what they want.

The Jews don't believe Paul and they still believe that they can bargain with God, meet the terms of the covenant, and earn their salvation.

If GC doesn't accept the 1888 message what could you possibly say that would have an influence on him?

scott

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/04/08 08:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

This is so unbiblical I don't even know where to start!

Quote:

GC: 1) The covenants began from the beginning, but the first clear mention is the word given to Noah. 2) The covenant was later renewed to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob (Israel).

Do you get your theology from the Bible? All God promised Noah is that He would save Him from a flood and never flood the earth again! Noah was a type of Christ in that He saved all who would enter the ark, but if you compare what God said to Noah to what He said to Abraham there is very little in common other that “God said”.

You have obviously heard someone say that there was only one covenant and you believed them and now you are set out to cram the round peg into the square hole. Since you didn’t get your view from the Bible please allow me to paste the whole covenant between God and Noah here:

Quote:

Genesis 9: 8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants[b] after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. 11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
12 And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

Quote:

By MM: I haven't read where God first attempted to offer the post-exilic Jews the new or everlasting covenant before compromising and offering them the old covenant. Here's what I have read about it. In this passage she applies Exodus 19:5, 6 to the old covenant.

What you are saying and what you are quoting doesn’t make sense. Ellen makes it perfectly clear that the promise of the New Covenant was first given to Eden, and repeated to Abraham, but not ratified until Christ’s death. This covenant was for all men at all times. Adam is my father and the New Covenant was to all of Adam’s descendants. Every man, including Israel, has been under God’s gracefulness which is the New Covenant. The New Covenant was that God would send a Savior through mankind and save mankind from Satan. If we put our trust in the God of the promise we are saved by faith just like Abraham.

The way I see it the COI were already under God’s covenant of Grace. He proved that by saving them from Egypt, the Red Sea, the desert, the snakes, sending them manna, water from a rock and making is so their sandals didn’t wear out! If they didn’t know God loved them and wanted to save them I don’t know what else God could do.

The Old Covenant was not a covenant of salvation, but a teaching tool made of types, shadows, priests, and sacrifices all pointing to Christ. Through it Israel was taught the plan of salvation and how to make their lives better on this earth. They were taught a health message, how to eat meat and keep from getting diseases, how to treat others so they could live in peace, what their sin costs themselves and others, how to be clean and live a healthy life.

In the Hebrew what we call “the Law” (torah) simply means “instructions” or “directions”. Then when the bible was translated in the Greek torah became “namos” which means a custom or command, but when translated into Latin and English it becomes the word “law”. Instructions . . . commands . . . laws! Can you see the digression!

God had already saved Israel and they were already under the New Covenant. So when God gave them instructions in righteousness to make them an evangelistic tool and a people that would bring the world the Messiah they misunderstood Him and though He was giving them things to do to earn their salvation.

scott

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/04/08 10:36 PM

Quote:

By MM: I'm sorry, Scott, I still don't get your point. "They misunderstood [1] this and [2] believed that God wanted them to keep the law to earn salvation. So [3] the covenant that God offered wasn’t [4] the one they agreed to." Please explain to me the following points (also, please post inspired quotes to support your explanations):

1. What did they misunderstand?

2. Where does it say this?

3. What did God offer them?

4. What did they think they were agreeing to?

1) What did they misunderstand?

They misunderstood what God was trying to do with them when they agreed to the OC. God wanted to train them to be His evangelists and they thought God was making terms they must obey in order to be saved. God wanted them to see His wisdom in the “instructions” and obey them with a greatful heart because He had just freed them from Bondage and saved them from their enemies.

2) Where does it say this?

This is what the Jew still believe today! Write “Ask a Rabbi” and ask what the terms of salvation are and they will tell you to keep the laws of Moses!

3) What did God offer them?

A chance to become a light to the world through good health, good relationships, fair government, clean living, and simply a life full of joy and peace.

4) What did they think they were agreeing to?

They thought God was giving them things to do in order to be saved. They were already saved!

Paul puts it this way in Galatians 3:

Quote:

15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

What God established with Israel 430 years after He made the promise to Abraham doesn’t make His promise to Abraham void.

scott

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 04:15 AM

Originally Posted By: scott

Scott,

You're mighty brave to tell me what I think or don't think. In fact, more than brave, you are incorrect. I don't disagree with Paul. I have challenged you to prove your view on the covenants without his writings, not because I disagree with them, but because Paul's very writing style lends itself to misunderstandings, and in order to understand the issues properly, it greatly simplifies things to find the answers elsewhere first, and then compare to Paul to see how his statements fit the whole.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 04:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall

Quote:

I don't consider Waggoner to have been fully correct in all of his ideas.

Yes, it seems you have ideas quite different than Waggoner's. It seems to me that Waggoner's ideas were correct during the time when EGW was endorsing him.

Quote:

It is rather unfortunate, but when the church rejected a message God had inspired him to give, he later apostatized, and rejected the truth.

EGW has something interesting to say about that:

Quote:

The statement I quoted was written in 1895, which is during the time that EGW was endorsing him.

Quote:

In other words, I don't agree.

Clearly, since you believe Paul was not balanced.

Quote:

I agree with this. However, saying that someone is not balanced is not the same thing as saying such a one did not have the entire picture.

Quote:

There is one book in the New Testament which puts balance to Paul. We can be very thankful for that little book! If it were not for James, I should be lost in confusion right now myself.

The only way it seems possible to me that you could write this is by not understanding what Paul was saying. Waggoner's explanation of what Paul said seems to me spot on. To requote just a portion:

Quote:

Is there something about this with which you disagree?

Tom,

Like Scott, you're quite brave to tell me what I believe...and like him, you are also incorrect.

I accept the 1888 message as having been inspired. My question was whether the statement you quoted from Waggoner were given before or after his apostasy. Makes a difference, doesn't it? C. S. Lewis also experienced more than one phase of his life, in which his writing styles were quite different. It makes a difference in which era he wrote as to whether or not there is much credibility with it from a Christian standpoint.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 05:02 AM

Originally Posted By: scott

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

This is so unbiblical I don't even know where to start!

Quote:

GC: 1) The covenants began from the beginning, but the first clear mention is the word given to Noah. 2) The covenant was later renewed to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob (Israel).

Quote:

Genesis 9: 8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. 11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
12 And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

[b]I would love to see the non existent biblical support that links Noah’s covenant to Abraham’s.

scott

Scott,

Request granted. I will show you the "non-existent biblical support that links Noah's covenant to Abraham's."

Yes, I get my theology from the Bible. I hope I can get my attitude from there too. If you believe that the only thing "God promised Noah is that He would save Him from a flood and never flood the earth again!", then I have the opportunity to open the Bible to you more fully.

If you wish to belittle the importance of God's covenant with Noah, then you will certainly not be looking for the beauty in it. However, I'm thankful today that God has kept his covenant with Noah, and still does. The covenant still applies to us today, does it not?

Now, the first important thing to notice is how God speaks of this covenant with Noah: "My covenant." Whose covenant is it? It is God's. How does God present it? "And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:11, KJV)

God is making more than one promise here: 1) He will establish His covenant with Noah, 2) All flesh will not perish in a flood again, and 3) There will not be another flood to cover the whole earth.

You will notice that, throughout the Bible, God keeps referring to His covenant as "My covenant." I don't see Him saying things like "My first covenant", "My second covenant", "My third covenant." If you wish to dissect them into separate covenants, I suppose I cannot stop you. However, just as there are separate laws given throughout the Bible, they all point back to just one law--which can be summed up in one word: "Love." It is the same with the covenants. They are all made of the same metal, upon the same anvil.

What is the main message of God's covenant to Noah? Ellen White describes this part nicely.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White

Lest the gathering clouds and falling rain should fill men with constant terror, from fear of another flood, the Lord encouraged the family of Noah by a promise: "I will establish My covenant with you; . . . neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. . . . I do set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud. . . . And I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature." {PP 106.1}
[Patriarchs and Prophets (1890)]

With the assurance given to Noah concerning the Flood, God Himself has linked one of the most precious promises of His grace: "As I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith Jehovah that hath mercy on thee." Isaiah 54:9, 10. {PP 107.2}

So, here are the things in common between the covenants of Noah and Abraham, besides simply "God said":
1) "My covenant" -- God calls them the same thing.
2) A sign or token is given in both as God's seal of promise.
3) The covenant shows God's love and mercy in both presentations.
4) Both covenants extend their prophetic promise to the future--to all descendants.
5) Both covenants are still in effect today with us: they were both given "everlasting" properties. (The covenant to Noah says "no more" and to Abraham "everlasting.")

Now, the fact that God's Covenant has existed from the beginning is referenced in this inspired commentary:

Originally Posted By: Ellen White

Says the prophet, "When Thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. Let favor be showed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness, . . . and will not behold the majesty of Jehovah." Isaiah 26:9, 10. Thus it was after the Flood. Released from His judgments, the inhabitants of the earth again rebelled against the Lord. Twice God's covenant and His statutes had been rejected by the world. Both the people before the Flood and the descendants of Noah cast off the divine authority. Then God entered into covenant with Abraham, and took to Himself a people to become the depositaries of His law.... {PP 120.3} [Patriarchs and Prophets (1890)]

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 05:34 AM

Hi GC,

I reread my last post and, again, I sound very harsh. Without trying to make excuses for my harshness I would like to tell you that I'm a very blunt person. I don't beat around the bush and many times people mistake my bluntness for rudeness. God save my speech. I like to get right to the point. This being said I apologize that I've offended you and I promise to try very hard to be more attentive to my attitude and bluntness.

Now to the subject.

First: You gave me no biblical support at all unless you consider Ellen as part of the cannon of scripture.

Second: The text you use (gen. 9:11) linking "My Covenant" to all of God's covenants because God showed "grace" is like saying that a watermelon is the same as a cucumber because they are both green.

If God is Love and His love is expressed in His gracefulness then any covenant God makes will be a covenant of Grace.

Quote:

by GC: You will notice that, throughout the Bible, God keeps referring to His covenant as "My covenant." I don't see Him saying things like "My first covenant", "My second covenant", "My third covenant." If you wish to dissect them into separate covenants, I suppose I cannot stop you. However, just as there are separate laws given throughout the Bible, they all point back to just one law--which can be summed up in one word: "Love." It is the same with the covenants. They are all made of the same metal, upon the same anvil.

Actually both the NT and the OT talk about 2 covenants. One being called the first which is replaced by a better one built on better promises. This is found in Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36, and Paul apply it in Hebrews 8.

So far none of your evidence is very convincing. I do have much more to say about your other points, but I don’t have time right now. Later!

God Bless

scott

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 05:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

Originally Posted By: scott

Hi GC,

I've just given you my version of what I hear. If it doesn't reflect what you believe or said then you might want to read your post from an objective position. Many times I run into the same problem. I know what I want to say, but others hear me differently. Communication is enhanced by both parties repeating what they hear from the other party. Why are you so offended in what I hear? Are you really convinced that it is all in my hearing and nothing to do with what you said?

scott

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 06:38 AM

Scott,

I often assume that others have the same tools to work from, the same textbook so to speak, as I do. Perhaps I should not assume thus. Here are the texts you asked for, with some highlighting etc. for readability, and with some texts shortened to save space:

Originally Posted By: The Holy Bible

But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. (Genesis 6:18, KJV)

And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; (Genesis 9:9, KJV

And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. (Genesis 9:11, KJV)

And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15, KJV)

And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. (Genesis 17:2, KJV)

As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. (Genesis 17:4, KJV)

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. (Genesis 17:7, KJV)

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (Genesis 17:9, KJV)

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:10, KJV)

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. (Genesis 17:13, KJV)

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. (Genesis 17:14, KJV)

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; ...and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. (Genesis 17:19, KJV)

But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. (Genesis 17:21, KJV)

And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. (Exodus 6:4, KJV)

And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. (Exodus 6:5, KJV)

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: (Exodus 19:5, KJV)

For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you. (Leviticus 26:9, KJV)

And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: (Leviticus 26:15, KJV)

Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. (Leviticus 26:42, KJV)

Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: (Numbers 25:12, KJV)

And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring... and break my covenant which I have made with them. (Deuteronomy 31:16, KJV)

For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware ...then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant. (Deuteronomy 31:20, KJV)

Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff. (Joshua 7:11, KJV)

And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. (Judges 2:1, KJV)

And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and he said, Because that this people hath transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice; (Judges 2:20, KJV)

Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. (1 Kings 11:11, KJV)

But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? (Psalms 50:16, KJV)

My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. (Psalms 89:28, KJV)

My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. (Psalms 89:34, KJV)

If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore. (Psalms 132:12, KJV)

For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; (Isaiah 56:4, KJV)

Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant. (Ezekiel 16:60, KJV)

Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; (Jeremiah 33:20, KJV)

...the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers. (Jeremiah 11:10, KJV)

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. (Isaiah 59:21, KJV)

Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; (Isaiah 56:6, KJV)

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head. (Ezekiel 17:19, KJV)

...which my covenant they brake, ...saith the LORD: (Jeremiah 31:32, KJV)

Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night...(Jeremiah 33:25, KJV)
...have transgressed my covenant,...(Jeremiah 34:18, KJV)
And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: (Ezekiel 16:62, KJV)
...and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations. (Ezekiel 44:7, KJV)
...because they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law. (Hosea 8:1, KJV)
...that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 2:4, KJV)
For this is my covenant unto them, .... (Romans 11:27, KJV)
....because they continued not in my covenant, ...saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:9, KJV)

Three things should stand out in those texts above:

1) "My covenant"
2) "Everlasting"
3) Relationship of "statutes", "oath", "commandments" to "covenant."

For the "showing God's love and mercy" point, see below:

Originally Posted By: The Holy Bible

My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name. (Malachi 2:5, KJV)

If you read carefully, there were several scriptures in my post which were used in support of my points. Why then do you say this?

Quote:

First: You gave me no biblical support at all unless you consider Ellen as part of the cannon of scripture.

Please note that I will not always use Bible verses within the frame of a quote box. They may be within the text itself. Additionally, I ordinarily like to keep posts short by not quoting texts where their content appears to me to be obvious, common, abundant, or well-known.

In view of the sheer numbers of texts supporting my points (and I did not even quote them all), I have a hard time swallowing this statement you made:

Quote:

Second: The text you use (gen. 9:11) linking "My Covenant" to all of God's covenants because God showed "grace" is like saying that a watermelon is the same as a cucumber because they are both green.

By the way, your "First:" and "Second:" points are in contradiction. You said that I didn't use scripture, and then recognize that I did! $\:\)$ As my friends in college would have quipped: "Too eager! Too eager!"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 07:38 AM

Quote:

I don't disagree with Paul. I have challenged you to prove your view on the covenants without his writings, not because I disagree with them, but because Paul's very writing style lends itself to misunderstandings, and in order to understand the issues properly, it greatly simplifies things to find the answers elsewhere first, and then compare to Paul to see how his statements fit the whole.

My computer died. It's a laptop, with a keyboard problem. With a desktop, when you have a keyboard problem, you just spend $10 or $20 and get a new keyboard, and that's that, but with a laptop it's more complicated.

So I went through some of my old stuff. I have to see if there's stuff worth keeping on this old computer anyway. I'll have to get rid of it to save space. So I went to look for the computer I was using before moving last, and actually, without knowing it at first, dug up the computer I had *before* that one, which is like 10 years old now. It's still running on Windows 95. But it works! Yay!

Anyway, GC, I agree with you here. I think Scott was being a bit hard on you. Scott's really a great guy; I've talked to him a lot on the phone. On the internet people come across much harsher than in real life. Scott and I used to have internet battles a lot, and then we started talking on the phone, and the conversations were much more like dialogs. I think the medium has to do with it. In person it's much easier to get a conversation going. On the internet, one tends to just talk about things one disagrees with, which makes it seem more like fighting.

I often ask people to prove things without Paul, for the exact reason you gave. Nothing wrong with Paul, it's just that he's easier to interpret any which way, as you pointed out. Not using Paul in dealing with the covenants is a bit of a challenge, but, actually, Paul got all ideas straight from the OT, so once we understand his arguments, we can just use the OT like he did.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 07:44 AM

Quote:

Like Scott, you're quite brave to tell me what I believe...and like him, you are also incorrect.

I accept the 1888 message as having been inspired. My question was whether the statement you quoted from Waggoner were given before or after his apostasy. Makes a difference, doesn't it?

I think this is a reasonable request, which is why I confirmed that it was during the time EGW was endorsing Waggoner, which it was. Actually, in the case of Waggoner, I don't think it makes a difference, as I don't believe his theology changed after his so-called apostacy. I say so-called because, to the best of my knolwedge, he never repudiated any beliefs he had before he apostacized. He had some issues with the leadership, but his theology didn't change. That's the way it seems to me. However, I'm aware that some people have concerns about his writings after 1896, which is the point up to which EGW was endorsing him, so I try to be senstive to that.

Quote:

C. S. Lewis also experienced more than one phase of his life, in which his writing styles were quite different. It makes a difference in which era he wrote as to whether or not there is much credibility with it from a Christian standpoint.

I don't know what you're getting at here.

Of course, everybody has phases in their writings. We can see that readily with EGW, who started writing when she was very young, hardly an adult, and continued well to an elderly age. Early Writings is far different than "The Desire of Ages," for example.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 09:09 AM

Quote:

GC: Three things should stand out in those texts above:

1) "My covenant"
2) "Everlasting"
3) Relationship of "statutes", "oath", "commandments" to "covenant."

But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. (Genesis 6:18, KJV)

And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; (Genesis 9:9, KJV

And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. (Genesis 9:11, KJV)

And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15, KJV)

Here are all of the texts you quoted from Noah’s covenant. I’m understanding you to be showing me things in this covenant that are in common with the Abrahamic covenant, but your number three is not even mentioned. There are no statutes or commandments referenced in the texts concerning Noah!

Your #1 is linking verbal text and drawing the conclusion that because the Bible uses the term “My Covenant” concerning every covenant mentioned then it is talking about the same covenant. I’m a contractor and send out my covenant in terms of proposals to many people. Every covenant (proposal, agreement, contract) has my business name on it and my signature. Could one say that a contract I enter for $1,000.00 is the same contract that I make for $300,000.00 just because they all say my name on them and they are my contracts?

What else would you expect them to be called?

And your #2 makes little logic to me because God is promising that He will never again flood the earth to Noah, but to Abraham He promises that Abraham’s seed would bless the whole earth and that Abraham would be given the land of Canaan for an eternal inheritance. What do they have to do with each other? Where is the promise of the Messiah coming through Noah’s seed? Where is the promise of the land of Canaan to Noah? Of course the promise to Noah extends to Abraham because Abraham is living on the earth that God promised never to flood again. We are all still reaping the benefits of God’s covenant to Noah!

scott

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 09:38 AM

Quote:

By GC: If you read carefully, there were several scriptures in my post which were used in support of my points. Why then do you say this?

By scott: First: You gave me no biblical support at all unless you consider Ellen as part of the cannon of scripture.

By GC: Please note that I will not always use Bible verses within the frame of a quote box. They may be within the text itself. Additionally, I ordinarily like to keep posts short by not quoting texts where their content appears to me to be obvious, common, abundant, or well-known.

Hi GC: Here is a revamp of our conversation:

Quote:

By scott: I would love to see the non existent biblical support that links Noah’s covenant to Abraham’s.

Quote:

By GC: Request granted. I will show you the "non-existent biblical support that links Noah's covenant to Abraham's." . . . Now, the first important thing to notice is how God speaks of this covenant with Noah: "My covenant." Whose covenant is it? It is God's. How does God present it? "And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:11, KJV)

This is the only text you used and then you say to me:

Quote:

By GC: In view of the sheer numbers of texts supporting my points (and I did not even quote them all), I have a hard time swallowing this statement you made:

By scott: Second: The text you use (gen. 9:11) linking "My Covenant" to all of God's covenants because God showed "grace" is like saying that a watermelon is the same as a cucumber because they are both green.

If I understand your point you are saying that because the Bible uses the term “My Covenant” in both the covenant to Noah and to Abraham that they are the same covenant. What you are not taking into consideration are the differences such as the content of the covenants. I think content has a lot more to do with similarity than does who gave the covenant or whether or not the covenants were an expression of God’s grace.

Quote:

By GC: By the way, your "First:" and "Second:" points are in contradiction. You said that I didn't use scripture, and then recognize that I did! As my friends in college would have quipped: "Too eager! Too eager!"

I asked you for text supporting your claim that Noah’s and Abraham’s covenants were the same and you gave me one text that I had already quoted and three Ellen White quotes. None of which verified your claim or gave me any of the evidence that I requested.

scott

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 12:48 PM

Scott,

To be honest, this last post of yours confuses me. I'm obviously missing something here, because when I just quoted dozens of texts in the last post, you still are contending I only used one. You have mingled my statement in the above post from at least two separate posts of mine, and then seemed to have used your assessment of the first as carry-over on the second. Anyhow, I'm not sure I should be trying to explain how it came across, because I'm quite confused by it.

Let me state it this way:

I believe that there is ONE God, ONE law, ONE covenant, and that these are ONE. The law is a revelation of God's character, e.g. a part of God. The covenant He makes with us is to bless us as we obey His law. This, too, is just like God--a part of His character.

Every example of the covenants that I gave in my prior post which included the phrases "my covenant", "everlasting", "my statutes", "my commandments", and so forth are evidence of a COMMON THEME. They are intertwined. That's what I was trying to show, although perhaps did not well explain.

Did you miss the entire section I gave providing texts for the correlation between God's covenant and God's covenant?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/06/08 08:59 PM

GC, I'm not understanding the idea that the Old Covenant is the same as the New. How do you understand what Jeremiah wrote? Also EGW's comment that rather than seeking to establish our own righteousness (OC) we accept the righteousness of Christ (NC)?

Also there are two laws. One law is eternal, the other was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). I presented an EGW statement regarding this as well. I don't recall your responding to this either. Sorry if you did, and I'm making you repeat yourself.

Regarding your conversation regarding the EC with Scott, I'm eagerly following it, as I think I'm agreeing with the overall idea you have. It seems to be similar to what Hubert was presenting, if you read earlier in the other thread I think ("The Everlasting Covenant" thread).

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/07/08 03:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

Hi GC:

If you read post #100548 (7/04/08 at 11:29am) I challenged you to provide me with what I thought was non-existent biblical evidence that the Noahatic and the Abrahamic covenants were the same.

You responded in post #100603 (7/05/08 at 8:02pm) that you would grant my request and you presented one text from the bible and three Ellen White quotes.

I responded to you in post #100606 (7/05/08 at 8:34pm) and told you:

Quote:

by scott: First: You gave me no biblical support at all unless you consider Ellen as part of the cannon of scripture.

Second: The text you use (gen. 9:11) linking "My Covenant" to all of God's covenants because God showed "grace" is like saying that a watermelon is the same as a cucumber because they are both green.

You answered my me in post #100608 (7/05/08 aat 9:38pm) with a list of texts from the bible to support your claim. In this post you say:

Quote:

by GC: In view of the sheer numbers of texts supporting my points (and I did not even quote them all), I have a hard time swallowing this statement you made:

By scott: Second: The text you use (gen. 9:11) linking "My Covenant" to all of God's covenants because God showed "grace" is like saying that a watermelon is the same as a cucumber because they are both green.

If you read these posts in order you will realize that you provided me with the Bible quotes after I made the statement about the watermelon and the cucumber. Thus my last post tried to explain this.

I would like to continue our discussion if possible. I will repeat my last post before we went on this wild goose chase.

scott

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/07/08 03:46 AM

Hi GC:
Here is my last post that considers the texts you quoted from the Bible.

Originally Posted By: scott

Quote:

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/07/08 08:54 AM

Originally Posted By: scott

Hi GC:
Here is my last post that considers the texts you quoted from the Bible.

Originally Posted By: scott

Quote:

Scott,

Your contractor analogy is a good one, and you've made a good case with it. I understand what you are saying; now let me try to explain better how I see things.

The big picture is that God's covenant is one of salvation. He offers this equally to all. But, God has referred to His plan of salvation in myriad ways and times. Does this mean that each is its own unique plan? Are they not linked together into one and the same?

Let me illustrate where I'm going, here, with some Bible texts:

Genesis 3:15 - God tells Adam and Eve:
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15, KJV)

This was the first promise of salvation. Adam and Eve had the capacity to understand its import to them, and looked for one their own sons to fulfill the promise.

God promises Abraham:
"And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;" (Genesis 26:4, KJV)

Abraham understands the message to refer to the future Messiah as well (though this title may not have been used yet). His grandson passes on the promise of God's covenant to his children in these words:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." (Genesis 49:10, KJV)

The message becomes more and more clear each time it is given.

"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words." (Exodus 24:8, KJV)

Tokens are added to symbolize God's promised salvation.
The rainbow: salvation from deluge; the circumcision: setting apart to be God's special people; the blood: representing the future Sacrifice that would bear their sins.

Each addition to the covenant reveals a little more about how God would keep His promise; each time God encourages His people to keep looking for the promised Salvation.

God weaves His Law into the covenant, showing them how it is related to their salvation from sin:

"Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant." (Exodus 31:16, KJV)

"And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exodus 34:28, KJV)

The covenant is everlasting:
"And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel." (Numbers 25:13, KJV)

This, to me, is a clear allusion to Jesus, our High Priest, who is "from everlasting to everlasting." The "covenant" here is a Messianic prophecy, and beyond. Jesus' death on the cross did not end His role as our High Priest. The covenant is still in effect.

"Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;" (Deuteronomy 7:9, KJV)

We have not even seen a thousand generations yet.
"Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant," (1 Chronicles 16:15-17, KJV)

Let me address the Old and New Covenants in another post. I believe they are the same, but it will take some explanation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/07/08 10:13 AM

ON THE WORD "NEW"

In order to understand the terms "new covenant" and "new testament" correctly, I feel it is important to understand the biblical sense of the word "new." Pardon the length of this, but if you read it carefully, I promise not to repeat this content again later. $\:\)$

For clarity's sake: I have done this study following the King James Version Bible, and its usage, so bear with me if any of the analysis seems not to fit with a more "modern" version--as I do not attempt to make this study apply to all versions.

The word "new" first appears in the Bible in one verse in Exodus, when speaking of a new king in Egypt. It does not appear again until Leviticus, where we begin to see how it is used:

"Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD." (Leviticus 23:16, KJV)

Notice how "new" is used. It refers to a repetition, or recurrence of an action, not a change in type. I will not attempt to say here, that EVERY use of "new" in the Bible has this same sense, for some of them certainly do refer to new in type (and one might benefit from studying the Hebrew and Greek here). However, if you follow this carefully, you will soon see how frequently the word "new" is used in a way that does not mean different or new in type or kind.

"Also in the day of the firstfruits, when ye bring a new meat offering unto the LORD, after your weeks be out, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work:" (Numbers 28:26, KJV)

If the meat offering were of a different type each year they did this, soon they would run out of clean animals to bring!

"So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat." (1 Samuel 20:24, KJV)

Have you ever wondered why we call it the "new moon"? It's the same old moon that always was there before. The word "new" is merely alluding to a repetitive event, a new occurrence of the same event which has happened before.

"For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers: and we will not forsake the house of our God." (Nehemiah 10:39, KJV)

I interpret this to mean the same as saying "fresh wine." It does not mean that the wine is different than any wine ever made. It is, again, a recurrence of that which has come before.

"And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD." (Psalms 40:3, KJV)

Does this mean that no one had ever praised God before? No, this is, again, just declaring that the song is "fresh." Praises to God are sung "again" or "anew."

This "new song" concept occurs frequently. "O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth." (Psalms 96:1, KJV)

Solomon goes so far as to say:
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, KJV)

This obviously refers to new in type, but its message is of interest.

God speaks through Isaiah:
"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." (Isaiah 65:17, KJV)

We often talk about this "earth made new." Does it mean another planet somewhere that we have never seen before? Or is it just the same earth we have now, restored to its former beauty? made again, fresh, anew?

Speaking of the Lord's mercies, Jeremiah writes:
"They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness." (Lamentations 3:23, KJV)

But does this mean God was not merciful before? Once again, this is not new in type, but referring to a recurring event, new in time.

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." (Ezekiel 36:26, KJV)

Again, these do not refer to new in type, but new in the sense of "fresh," "renewed," "restored." Our hearts have become hardened, like stone. God wants to restore them to perfect condition.

"And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine." (Ezekiel 47:12, KJV)

The fruit here is continually growing, so that there is "fresh" fruit all the time. Each month may have a fresh variety, but this is a cycle that will repeat.

"No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse." (Matthew 9:16, KJV)

Was cloth never made before? No, that cannot be the case, for the garment is itself made of cloth. Probably the same kind of cloth. The difference is that the "new" cloth is "fresh."

Multiple times we hear these terms in the Bible. I won't go to every verse. "A new generation," "a new king," etc. all represent a repetition of that which has come before.

When Jesus offered His blood as a "new testament," did this mean that blood had never been offered as a testament before? No. We had many such testaments offered before. Jesus' testament was only the most recent, and might I add the best and last one necessary.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28, KJV)

If one wishes this to mean "new in type or kind," and I think it has this meaning as well (double meaning here), then I think he or she would look at this as saying "instead of the blood of animals, you will now drink this wine as a symbol of my blood."

"Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." (Mark 14:25, KJV)

In these words of Jesus, He clearly says He will drink it "again" with us in Heaven.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;" (Mark 16:17, KJV)

I'm learning a new "tongue"--Chinese. Is it a "new" language? Hardly! It is perhaps the oldest language on earth. It is only "new" to me. When Jesus speaks of the "new" commandment:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John 13:34, KJV)

He likewise renewed, or directed to me, an OLD commandment:

"...but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18, KJV)

The "New Covenant" is a fresh presentation of the "Old Covenant."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/07/08 10:15 PM

Quote:

By GC: "Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD." (Leviticus 23:16, KJV)

Notice how "new" is used. It refers to a repetition, or recurrence of an action, not a change in type. I will not attempt to say here, that EVERY use of "new" in the Bible has this same sense, for some of them certainly do refer to new in type (and one might benefit from studying the Hebrew and Greek here). However, if you follow this carefully, you will soon see how frequently the word "new" is used in a way that does not mean different or new in type or kind. . . If the meat offering were of a different type each year they did this, soon they would run out of clean animals to bring!

Hi GC,

The word “new” in Leviticus 23:16 in reference to the meat offering is the Hebrew word “chadash” and it simply means something that is new or fresh. Meat spoils and therefore has to be replaced very frequently and this is the context. Notice the comparison in Leviticus 26:10 “And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth the old because of the new.”

The reason for the name “new meat offering” is because it was replaced often so as not to become full of maggots and stinking. The old was continually replaced by the new. You said, “you will soon see how frequently the word "new" is used in a way that does not mean different or new in type or kind.” And you are right in this case because meat is meat is meat is meat and God only made a few types of lamb and to use the word “chadash” meaning a new different type would have force Israel to travel the world in search of different species related to sheep, goats, and cows.

Quote:

By GC: "So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat." (1 Samuel 20:24, KJV)

Have you ever wondered why we call it the "new moon"? It's the same old moon that always was there before. The word "new" is merely alluding to a repetitive event, a new occurrence of the same event which has happened before.

I see your point, but I don’t agree with your application. The word “chadash” can mean something that is repeated continually or something that is brand new exactly like we use the word to describe a new car or a whole new way of transporting people by displacing their molecules and reassembling them on another planet. The word new has to be put in context in order to apply its meaning. What you are doing is finding a multitude of times the word “new” is used describing a continuum and making the claim that “new” is always in reference to a continuum.

I think it would be good for us to see how the NT bible writers translated “New Covenant” in the Greek. The Greek word they used is “kainos” which means recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn as respects substance of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.

The Greek word is not talking about getting a new car when the old one wears out, but a whole new way of transportation like a space ship. This same word is used for “new man in Christ” and a “new creature in Christ”. Do you think that God is going to repair or restore our old nature or do you think that the old man has to die and become a new man?

In fact the Greek uses the word “noumenia” for new moon which is a combination of “neos” and “men”. “Neos” meaning younger or youngest and “men” meaning month. Youngest month! Why didn’t the Greek use the word “kainos” with month?

What I hear you saying is that because “new” is used many times in the OT for things that cycle or continue that when it is used describing covenant that it must be talking about a cycle or continuum. I believe you are operating on a false premise and I believe the NT proves my point very well. The NT writers could have chosen words that mean a continuum or something refreshed, but it didn’t. So I am left to either believe your interpretation of the text or their's.

Even though I don’t believe the Bible supports your take on “new” I don’t believed that the NC was new in the sense of newer than the old. In fact I believe the NC existed from the Genesis 3:15 in the promise that God would send a man to redeem humankind. The reason it is called new is because it was ratified, put in effect, the terms were met, however you want to put it, at the cross. The OC was ratified by the blood of animals, but the NC was ratified by the blood of Christ after Sinai. That is why it is called “new”.

There are major differences in the covenants:

1) The OC was only to Abraham’s physical children, but the NC was to all of mankind.
2) The OC had an earthly sanctuary, but the NC has a heavenly sanctuary.
3) The OC had and earthly priesthood, but the NC has Jesus as our High Priest and those who believe in Him are the priesthood of all believers.
4) The OC had animal sacrifices which didn’t cause maturity those who did them, but the NC has Christ as the sacrifice which causes us to see God’s love and mature in that love.
5) The OC sacrificed daily, monthly, and yearly, but the NC there is only one sacrifice and when it was made it was finished.
6) The ceremonies of the OC were a compacted prophecy of Jesus and when He came they were all fulfilled and we are no longer required to act them out.

But outside of building a theology out of words I would like to suggest that we go to one of the two places in the Bible where systematic theology covers this subject. And we find that theology in Galatians 4 where Paul says in verse 24-26: ”Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

The 2nd place we find it is the whole book of Hebrews where we see Jesus as the fulfillment of the OC and now that He has come the OC has become obsolete and ready to pass away.

Both the OT and NT tell me there are 2 covenants and you tell me there is one. Who am I supposed to believe?

Also in your presentation you don’t include anything about God’s covenant to Noah which is the point we were discussing first.

I really do see your point. I agree that God has had a plan from the beginning and that every dealing He has had with mankind is another expression of His plan. Had He not entered covenant with Noah there would be no family to bring the Messiah through. You also must realize that this is the position you have set yourself to prove:

Quote:

By GC: At this point, I differ. God did not enter into a different covenant with Israel, based on "different principles, which had the law written on tablets of stone." I see that you are trying to make the point that writing on the heart is better than on stone. That's the only part of this I'll agree with. The principles themselves are not different. They are the same.

The Old Covenant was based on the principle of “keep the law and live”, but the New Covenant was based on the principle that “God would send a Messiah to save us from ourselves”. This is why the law stands in condemnation of us and the gospel shows us God’s gracefulness and our acceptance in Him. Two different covenants with two different sets of principles!

The fact that there are two covenant is the reason we there is so much discussion in the NT about the law and grace. We have a covenant of law and a covenant of grace. One leads to bondage and one to freedom. One condemns us and the other frees us from our condemnation. One is a taskmaster while the other reveals a Friend and Lover. One was only for the physical children of Abraham and the other is for the whole world to see God's graciousness.

scott

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/08/08 04:56 AM

Originally Posted By: scott

Quote:

Thank you. At least you have understood my perspective. I appreciate that.

Originally Posted By: scott

Quote:

You didn't read carefully. I very clearly stated that I did not apply this usage to every occurrence of the word. What I am stating, however, is that the word is frequently used this way, and therefore it casts doubt on the usage of "new in type." In other words, since it could have more than one meaning, we must not rush to judgment as to what it means without careful study.

Originally Posted By: scott

I think it would be good for us to see how the NT bible writers translated “New Covenant” in the Greek. The Greek word they used is “kainos” which means recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn as respects substance of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.

The Greek word is not talking about getting a new car when the old one wears out, but a whole new way of transportation like a space ship. This same word is used for “new man in Christ” and a “new creature in Christ”. Do you think that God is going to repair or restore our old nature or do you think that the old man has to die and become a new man?

Is that so? "A new commandment I give unto you..." Care to guess which Greek word that was? Ah....perhaps now you will begin to see this from a "new" perspective. $\:\)$

Jesus was OBVIOUSLY not talking about a "new spaceship" here. Yet the word is "kainos." Look carefully at what "kainos" means. It is NOT the same as "neos," which would be "new" in the sense of type or kind. If he wanted to describe a new spaceship, as opposed to the old car, the word should have been "neos."

Originally Posted By: scott

In fact the Greek uses the word “noumenia” for new moon which is a combination of “neos” and “men”. “Neos” meaning younger or youngest and “men” meaning month. Youngest month! Why didn’t the Greek use the word “kainos” with month?

Actually, the word "new moon" in the Bible is a single word. The word "new" is just part of its English equivalent. I found a comment in my Strong's Concordance on the Greek word for new which I find rather unsettling, for it appears to be an insertion of someone's interpretation as to the intent of the word, as opposed to an actual translation of its meaning. This should be a no-no. It's the same error committed repeatedly in the NIV, often grievously.

Originally Posted By: scott

What I hear you saying is that because “new” is used many times in the OT for things that cycle or continue that when it is used describing covenant that it must be talking about a cycle or continuum. I believe you are operating on a false premise and I believe the NT proves my point very well. The NT writers could have chosen words that mean a continuum or something refreshed, but it didn’t. So I am left to either believe your interpretation of the text or their's.

No, I'm not limiting this to the OT. However, I did run out of time (and space) toward the end and did not add in as many texts from the NT as I might have. The example of "new commandment" being "kainos", however, should be sufficient to mark out the usage for "kainos" in the Greek, and the parallel with the Hebrew in this sense. It is no different. Kainos may be used more than one way, just like the Hebrew words for "new."

Originally Posted By: scott

Even though I don’t believe the Bible supports your take on “new” I don’t believed that the NC was new in the sense of newer than the old. In fact I believe the NC existed from the Genesis 3:15 in the promise that God would send a man to redeem humankind. The reason it is called new is because it was ratified, put in effect, the terms were met, however you want to put it, at the cross. The OC was ratified by the blood of animals, but the NC was ratified by the blood of Christ after Sinai. That is why it is called “new”.

This is puzzling to me. If you are already agreeing with me, essentially, then how can you be disagreeing at the same time?

Originally Posted By: scott

There are major differences in the covenants:

1) The OC was only to Abraham’s physical children, but the NC was to all of mankind.
2) The OC had an earthly sanctuary, but the NC has a heavenly sanctuary.
3) The OC had and earthly priesthood, but the NC has Jesus as our High Priest and those who believe in Him are the priesthood of all believers.
4) The OC had animal sacrifices which didn’t cause maturity those who did them, but the NC has Christ as the sacrifice which causes us to see God’s love and mature in that love.
5) The OC sacrificed daily, monthly, and yearly, but the NC there is only one sacrifice and when it was made it was finished.
6) The ceremonies of the OC were a compacted prophecy of Jesus and when He came they were all fulfilled and we are no longer required to act them out.

Alright, let's break this down point-by-point.
1) Incorrect. The Old Covenant is for all people, not just the children of Abraham. The fact that the Jews kept the knowledge of it to themselves is merely to their own condemnation. God desired them to be a light to the nations around them.
2) Sort of. I believe there has always been a sanctuary in Heaven. The earthly one was given as a model of it. But, yes, the earthly sanctuary was destroyed, and not permitted to be rebuilt. God wanted the "sanctuary" to be thought of as a place in our hearts, in our "body temple", as opposed to a physical place on earth.
3) Jesus has always been our High Priest..."after the order of Melchizedek."
4) Sacrifices don't cause maturity. Jesus' sacrifice, in this particular, is no different. There are plenty of people on earth today who scoff at it. God's love has always been evident. Many were the wonders God worked for His people throughout the times of the Old Testament. Many, too, were the praises they sang to God in return. Interestingly, there are no books of praise in the New Testament that resemble the praises of David (Psalms) of the Old. Does this mean we no longer need praise God? Of course not. It does show a strong relationship with God on David's part, and I do not believe he had any disadvantage in terms of realizing God's love.
5) Yes and no. We should be daily worshiping God still.
6) Agreed.

Originally Posted By: scott

But outside of building a theology out of words I would like to suggest that we go to one of the two places in the Bible where systematic theology covers this subject. And we find that theology in Galatians 4 where Paul says in verse 24-26: ”Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

The 2nd place we find it is the whole book of Hebrews where we see Jesus as the fulfillment of the OC and now that He has come the OC has become obsolete and ready to pass away.

Both the OT and NT tell me there are 2 covenants and you tell me there is one. Who am I supposed to believe?

How many laws are there? It depends on how you count. As I've said before, whether you say there were 10 Laws, hundreds of laws, 2 laws, or some other figure, they all boil down to just one law: love. None of the laws operates from a different principle than this. The same is true of the covenants. If you want to split them up on a per-presentation/renewal basis, we can have many of them. They all boil down to one.

Originally Posted By: scott

Also in your presentation you don’t include anything about God’s covenant to Noah which is the point we were discussing first.

I really do see your point. I agree that God has had a plan from the beginning and that every dealing He has had with mankind is another expression of His plan. Had He not entered covenant with Noah there would be no family to bring the Messiah through. You also must realize that this is the position you have set yourself to prove:

Quote:

Not different. The difference lies in your understanding. There is no contradiction in the Bible.

Why did the people sacrifice animals? Because "God would send a Messiah to save us." You have stated something as applying to the New Covenant, which I think applies more fittingly to the Old.

As for the covenant to Noah, it certainly remains in effect today, or do you disagree? And it was not just to "the descendants of Abraham," since Abraham did not even yet exist. If it were to "just" the descendents of Noah, I think it's quite clear to whom it applies: ALL. However, the Bible is clear enough...let it do the explaining.

"And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:" (Genesis 9:12, KJV)

Originally Posted By: scott

The fact that there are two covenant is the reason we there is so much discussion in the NT about the law and grace. We have a covenant of law and a covenant of grace. One leads to bondage and one to freedom. One condemns us and the other frees us from our condemnation. One is a taskmaster while the other reveals a Friend and Lover. One was only for the physical children of Abraham and the other is for the whole world to see God's graciousness.

scott

The law does not "lead us to bondage." The law simply shows us that we ARE in bondage. If we are sinning today, Paul says we are "in bondage to sin." I think this still applies now, don't you? Can I sin now, and not be in bondage to the sin?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/08/08 06:43 AM

Here's a quote I've often presented, although to date I don't believe it's had any impact.

Quote:

Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother Dan Jones, Brother Porter and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented.(1888 Mat. 604)

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/08/08 08:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall

Here's a quote I've often presented, although to date I don't believe it's had any impact.

Quote:

Tom, this is a classic quote taken out of context.

1) No mention of specific positions is made in this quote, nor even in the paragraphs before and after it.
2) The emphatic nature of the statement is cutting BOTH ways. Notice this sentence from the paragraph which follows your quote:
"As to the law in Galatians, I have no burden and never have had and know Brother Smith, Porter, Jones or any one will never be prepared to receive light, either to establish or refute their position until every one of you are men truly converted before God."
3) Judging by the context, I would say this is most clearly speaking to the motivation, spirit, and/or attitude of those studying the issues, and is NOT addressing the issues themselves.
4) Mrs. White herself takes no sides in the matter in this statement, other than to urge true conversion of heart before taking up this study.
5) I agree with her on this point.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/08/08 06:13 PM

Quote:

by GC: 4) Mrs. White herself takes no sides in the matter in this statement, other than to urge true conversion of heart before taking up this study.

She doesn't in that statement, but she did later see the law in Galations as the 10 Commandments and the cerimonial law which together make up the Old Covenant.

Quote:

by Ellen: I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments. {1SM 233.1}

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/08/08 08:02 PM

Originally Posted By: scott

Quote:

by GC: 4) Mrs. White herself takes no sides in the matter in this statement, other than to urge true conversion of heart before taking up this study.

She doesn't in that statement, but she did later see the law in Galations as the 10 Commandments and the cerimonial law which together make up the Old Covenant.

Quote:

by Ellen: I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments. {1SM 233.1}

Tom and Scott,

I say this to both of you. I'm not ready to argue on this point further. I don't feel it is productive. Paul is the most easily misunderstood author in the Bible, in my opinion, and this is why I challenged you to establish your views without him. Nor do I think it should be necessary to use his writings to support such an important doctrine as that of the covenant(s) of God, which are mentioned scores of times in other books throughout the Bible.

I will present a few statements to illustrate why I feel this way in this particular instance, and then I will hope that you will not belabor this point with me. I do not understand, particularly, where you are even trying to go with these recent statements from Mrs. White's pen. She herself seems to prefer harmony over the sharp accuracy of truth on this issue.

Here are her statements:

Originally Posted By: Mrs. White

Especially the Moral Law

"The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24). In this scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and causes us to feel our need of Christ and to flee unto Him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. {1SM 234.5}
[Selected Messages Book 1 (1958)]

This statement seems to lead a different direction from the one Scott quoted.

Now, for some background on this, I did a little reading. I have been blessed by it, and pray that you will too. Should you like to read the statements in their full context, I suggest you click on this link. However, in shorter form, I will quote here:

Originally Posted By: Ellen White Bio

But this was not the case at Minneapolis. Those there did not try to make their differences "as slight as possible." For two years the issue of the law in Galatians had smoldered, and when it was taken up, bitterness and accusations were unleashed. {3BIO 399.2}

The focal point was verse 24 of chapter 3, which reads: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." There was no argument among Seventh-day Adventists concerning the believer's being justified by faith, although this vital truth was sadly neglected at the time. In 1888 the sharp difference of opinion, as when J. H. Waggoner wrote on the subject in 1854, was whether the law brought to view as the schoolmaster was the moral or the ceremonial law. Thus two issues were bound up in a study of "the law and the gospel" in such a way that if one topic suffered in bitter debate, both were affected. The great adversary took advantage of this. {3BIO 399.3}

The Law in Galatians at Last Introduced

On Monday, October 15, near the close of the institute, E. J. Waggoner introduced the subject of the law in Galatians. The discussion ran for almost a week at the Bible study periods in the General Conference session. Beginning with the second day, Waggoner placed the emphasis on justification by faith. He was scholarly, gentle, and earnest, his arguments persuasive. On Monday, October 22, just one week after beginning his studies, he wrote a report of the progress of the institute and the General Conference session for the readers of the Signs of the Times. After writing of the subjects presented in the Bible study hour during the first few days, he reported that next taken up were "the law and the gospel in their various relations, coming under the general head of justification by faith." {3BIO 399.5}

These subjects have aroused a deep interest in the minds of
all present; and thus far during the conference, one hour a day
has been devoted to a continuance of their study.--ST, Nov. 2,
1888. {3BIO 400.1}

His audience generally was in sympathy with the much-loved and respected Uriah Smith. Many stood with Butler, who was absent. Because Ellen White was tolerant and wished to see a fair discussion of the vital question of Christ and His righteousness, it was assumed she was influenced by Waggoner. This she denied, testifying: {3BIO 400.2}

I have had no conversation in regard to it with my son W. C.
White, with Dr. Waggoner, or with Elder A. T. Jones.--MS 15,
1888 (see also A. V. Olson, Thirteen Crisis Years,
pp. 304, 305). {3BIO 400.3}

All could see that she listened attentively to Waggoner's expositions. In her retrospective statement, written soon after the conference, she declared: {3BIO 400.4}

When I stated before my brethren that I had heard for the first
time the views of Elder E. J. Waggoner, some did not believe me.
I stated that I had heard precious truths uttered that I could
respond to with all my heart, for had not these great and glorious truths, the righteousness of Christ and the entire sacrifice made in behalf of man, been imprinted indelibly on my mind by the Spirit of God? Has not this subject been presented in the testimonies again and again? When the Lord had given to my
brethren the burden to proclaim this message, I felt inexpressively grateful to God, for I knew it was the message for this time.--MS 24, 1888 (see also 3SM, p. 172). {3BIO 400.5}

It is interesting to note that several times Ellen White declared that she was not ready to accept some points made by Dr. Waggoner. Of this she wrote on November 1, while the conference was nearing its close: {3BIO 401.1}

Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do
not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would respect his feelings and treat him as a
Christian gentleman. . . . The fact that he honestly holds some
views of Scripture differing from yours or mine is no reason why
we should treat him as an offender, or as a dangerous man, and
make him the subject of unjust criticism. We should not raise a
voice of censure against him or his teachings unless we can
present weighty reasons for so doing and show him that he is in
error. No one should feel at liberty to give loose rein to the
combative spirit. . . . {3BIO 401.2}

It would be dangerous to denounce Dr. Waggoner's position
as wholly erroneous. This would please the enemy. I see the
beauty of truth in the presentation of the righteousness of Christ in relation to the law as the doctor has placed it before us.--MS 15, 1888 (see also Olson, op. cit., p. 304). {3BIO 401.3}

Satan's Diverting Strategy

Here we see some of the fine points in the matter. In this statement she refers to the enemy; it is very clear that she considered what was taking place as a phase of the struggle between the forces of righteousness and the forces of the enemy. She had been forewarned: "I had presented before me in Europe chapters in the future experience of our people which are being fulfilled during this meeting. The reason given me was want of Bible piety and of the spirit and mind of Christ. The enemy has been placing his mold on the work for years, for it certainly is not the divine mold."--MS 21, 1888. {3BIO 401.4}

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/08/08 08:08 PM

I realized after I posted that perhaps I was not clear enough. The point I am unwilling to argue further on is specifically this: The exact definition of the law as Paul used the term in Galatians, and more specifically, whether or not Ellen White, Jones, Waggoner, or anyone else, had the correct view of it. I need not be pitting one against another further in this discussion.

I'm happy to continue discussing other points related to the covenants.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh no! I’m not worthy to tie her shoes!

Just following her advice! It seems to me that God gave this particular message to Jones and Waggoner and that Ellen was only slightly in the loop as she supported them. Their message took her by surprise and she was thrilled to hear God's voice in these men. Maybe we would do well to listen to them rather than listen to her as she struggles trying to make sense of it all theologically.

Do you consider my thoughts blasphemy?

scott

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/09/08 06:25 PM

I think Waggoner was the clearest. I rather agree with GC regarding Paul. I think Paul is widely misunderstood. I think Ellen White is also widely misunderstood. Actually, anyone who writes on spiritual matters is apt to be misunderstood.

However, I think John and E. G. Waggoner are two who wrote particularly clearly. I also think Jesus' teachings are, in general, clear. (I say "in general" because sometimes there are some historical/cultural insights which are necessary to correctly understand His words; e.g. parable of Lazarus and the rich man; the great thing about Jesus' words is even if you get something a bit wrong, there's still a lot of meat one can get.)

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/09/08 09:01 PM

Might Paul be so misunderstood simply because people use his legal metaphor to create an atonement model that doesn't fit God's character? When it comes to the covenants Paul is our only real source of prophetic interpretation. Where else can one go to understand the covenants other than Paul? Where else can one go to understand the law and grace other than Paul?

Who else was filled with the Holy Spirit, called by God to write about these things, and saw hard things to understand and left with the job of making them understood?

How can we say we see things more clearly than those so close to Jesus and called as Apostles to take the gospel to the world?

I somehow don't think Paul is the problem!

He is the cognitive dissonance that keeps challenging our pet theologies.

scott

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/10/08 12:15 AM

The theology Paul developed is all in the Old Testament, so we should be able to get it from there, just like Paul did.

I've asked people to prove the legal idea without Paul. I know someone who challenges people to prove it from Jesus' teachings (some might say I do this, which is true, but I got the idea from someone else).

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/10/08 12:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall

Quote:

Do you disagree with anything I've posted on this thread?

Quote:

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/10/08 12:51 AM

Originally Posted By: scott

MM: I haven't read where God first attempted to offer the post-exilic Jews the new or everlasting covenant before compromising and offering them the old covenant. Here's what I have read about it. In this passage she applies Exodus 19:5, 6 to the old covenant.

S: What you are saying and what you are quoting doesn’t make sense. Ellen makes it perfectly clear that the promise of the New Covenant was first given to Eden, and repeated to Abraham, but not ratified until Christ’s death. This covenant was for all men at all times. Adam is my father and the New Covenant was to all of Adam’s descendants. Every man, including Israel, has been under God’s gracefulness which is the New Covenant. The New Covenant was that God would send a Savior through mankind and save mankind from Satan. If we put our trust in the God of the promise we are saved by faith just like Abraham.

The way I see it the COI were already under God’s covenant of Grace. He proved that by saving them from Egypt, the Red Sea, the desert, the snakes, sending them manna, water from a rock and making is so their sandals didn’t wear out! If they didn’t know God loved them and wanted to save them I don’t know what else God could do.

The Old Covenant was not a covenant of salvation, but a teaching tool made of types, shadows, priests, and sacrifices all pointing to Christ. Through it Israel was taught the plan of salvation and how to make their lives better on this earth. They were taught a health message, how to eat meat and keep from getting diseases, how to treat others so they could live in peace, what their sin costs themselves and others, how to be clean and live a healthy life.

In the Hebrew what we call “the Law” (torah) simply means “instructions” or “directions”. Then when the bible was translated in the Greek torah became “namos” which means a custom or command, but when translated into Latin and English it becomes the word “law”. Instructions . . . commands . . . laws! Can you see the digression!

God had already saved Israel and they were already under the New Covenant. So when God gave them instructions in righteousness to make them an evangelistic tool and a people that would bring the world the Messiah they misunderstood Him and though He was giving them things to do to earn their salvation.

Scott, your response indicates you agree with me, that God did not offer the COI the OC because they rejected the NC. Here’s how she put it:

PP 371
God brought them to Sinai; He manifested His glory; He gave them His law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: "If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Exodus 19:5, 6. The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}

“…they broke their covenant with God… a covenant which they had broken;” This is referring to the covenant described in Exodus 19:5, 6 – namely, the OC. Is this what you believe? That is, do you believe God offered the COI the OC in Exodus 19:5, 6, and that it is the OC they broke when they worshiped the golden calf and few weeks later?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/10/08 01:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall

Are you sure Jesus didn't reveal it to Paul like He did to Sister White? For example, Jesus showed Sister White details He showed Adam, Enoch, and Moses that were not recorded in the Bible. Like this:

SR 58, 59
God communed with Enoch through His angels and gave him divine instruction. He made known to him that He would not always bear with man in his rebellion--that His purpose was to destroy the sinful race by bringing a flood of waters upon the earth. {SR 57.2}

The pure and lovely Garden of Eden, from which our first parents were driven, remained until God purposed to destroy the earth by a flood. God had planted that garden and specially blessed it, and in His wonderful providence He withdrew it from the earth, and will return it to the earth again more gloriously adorned than before it was removed from the earth. God purposed to preserve a specimen of His perfect work of creation free from the curse wherewith He had cursed the earth. {SR 58.1}

The Lord opened more fully to Enoch the plan of salvation, and by the Spirit of prophecy carried him down through the generations which should live after the Flood, and showed him the great events connected with the second coming of Christ and the end of the world. (Jude 14.) {SR 58.2}

Enoch was troubled in regard to the dead. It seemed to him that the righteous and the wicked would go to the dust together, and that would be their end. He could not clearly see the life of the just beyond the grave. In prophetic vision he was instructed in regard to the Son of God, who was to die man's sacrifice, and was shown the coming of Christ in the clouds of heaven, attended by the angelic host, to give life to the righteous dead and ransom them from their graves. He also saw the corrupt state of the world at the time when Christ should appear the second time--that there would be a boastful, presumptuous, self-willed generation arrayed in rebellion against the law of God and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ, and trampling upon His blood and despising His atonement. He saw the righteous crowned with glory and honor while the wicked were separated from the presence of the Lord and consumed with fire. {SR 58.3}

Enoch faithfully rehearsed to the people all that God had revealed to him by the Spirit of prophecy. Some believed his words and turned from their wickedness to fear and worship God. {SR 59.1}

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/10/08 02:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: scott

Hi MM,

Yes I agree with you! But one think you must understand is that when we try to earn our salvation we reject God's free gift of grace and we make God look like He could be bribed.

So when Israel tried to establish their own righteousness, rather than accepting the free gift of salvation that God promised in Eden and again to Abraham, they set themselves up for failure and, indeed, entered a covenant of works with God not realizing what He was trying to do for them.

We see the same thing happening today in Christianity. Salvation is a free gift that reflects God's goodness and His righteousness. That gift should give us assurance and cause a love response back to God, but how many live in fear not knowing if God will save them? How many believe that their little group has it right and does it right and everyone else is lost? How many believe that they are special in God's eyes and get special favors if they do their little duties?

These, and many more, are all the ways we repeat the history of the Jews.

scott

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/10/08 07:27 AM

Quote:

Are you sure Jesus didn't reveal it to Paul like He did to Sister White? For example, Jesus showed Sister White details He showed Adam, Enoch, and Moses that were not recorded in the Bible.

Paul quoted Scripture, and reasoned from what he quoted. Ellen White wasn't doing this in what you quoted. Indeed, in regards to the points Paul makes in Romans 4, and Galatians 3, Ellen White does exactly the same thing Paul does; she quotes Scripture, and reasons from what she quotes.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/10/08 07:41 PM

Originally Posted By: scott

Yes I agree with you! But one think you must understand is that when we try to earn our salvation we reject God's free gift of grace and we make God look like He could be bribed.

Amen.

Originally Posted By: scott

Did God expect them to obey and observe the terms and conditions of the OC? If so, how and why?

Originally Posted By: scott

We see the same thing happening today in Christianity. Salvation is a free gift that reflects God's goodness and His righteousness. That gift should give us assurance and cause a love response back to God, but how many live in fear not knowing if God will save them?

So true, and so sad.

Originally Posted By: scott

How many believe that their little group has it right and does it right and everyone else is lost? How many believe that they are special in God's eyes and get special favors if they do their little duties?

Did God raise up a Remnant Church out of the ruins of the Great Disappointment in 1844? Did He commission them with a special work? If so, does this Remnant Church exist today? If so, do they have a special work to do? If so, what is their special work and commission?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/10/08 07:44 PM

Tom, do you agree with Scott and I regarding Exodus 19:5, 6? Please see our last few posts here. Thank you.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/10/08 07:57 PM

Earlier Scott wrote that God offered the people one covenant, and they responded with another. I agree with this.

I agree with what Waggoner wrote:

Quote:

That the covenant and promise of God are one and the same thing, is clearly seen from Gal.3:17, where it appears that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of Canaan--and with it the whole world--for an everlasting possession; but Gal.3:18 says that God gave it to him by promise.

God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Rom.11:35,36. It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things."

But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part. After the flood God made a covenant with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Gen.9:9-16. They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do.

God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing, and He gives us Himself, that is, everything. That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all, they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be a "mutual" affair--a transaction in which they will be considered as on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything, and gives everything.(The Glad Tidings)

Ellen White wrote that Waggoner had the "truth," regarding the covenants, that his position was "clear and convincing," and that it was a waste of effort to try to produce a position contrary to Waggoner's. I agree with this too.

Scott wrote this in his most recent post:

Quote:

So when Israel tried to establish their own righteousness, rather than accepting the free gift of salvation that God promised in Eden and again to Abraham, they set themselves up for failure and, indeed, entered a covenant of works with God not realizing what He was trying to do for them.

We see the same thing happening today in Christianity. Salvation is a free gift that reflects God's goodness and His righteousness. That gift should give us assurance and cause a love response back to God, but how many live in fear not knowing if God will save them? How many believe that their little group has it right and does it right and everyone else is lost? How many believe that they are special in God's eyes and get special favors if they do their little duties?

I agree with this. The underlined portion has particularly to do with this conversation, so I underlined it, emphasizing my agreement with it. However, the second paragraph is a great insight, worth repeating (so I did).

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/12/08 05:40 PM

Quote:

By scott: How many believe that their little group has it right and does it right and everyone else is lost? How many believe that they are special in God's eyes and get special favors if they do their little duties?

By MM: Did God raise up a Remnant Church out of the ruins of the Great Disappointment in 1844? Did He commission them with a special work? If so, does this Remnant Church exist today? If so, do they have a special work to do? If so, what is their special work and commission?

Hi MM,

There are a lot of perks to being God’s remnant. I like the “living sacrifice” and “becoming all things to all men” part the best. How about the “greatest in God’s Kingdom is the greatest servant” part? And don’t forget the “giving up their lives” and the call to “love” our enemies!

What a calling! What a privilege to be God’s chosen!

scott

P.S. I almost forgot about the "hated by all men" and "you will be persecuted" part! With perks like that who could resist?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/12/08 06:43 PM

S: There are a lot of perks to being God’s remnant.

MM: Does the Remnant Church exist today? If so, which church is it?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/12/08 10:09 PM

Quote:

Tom, this is a classic quote taken out of context.

It's not out of context. You can read the whole letter and verify this. The whole point of the letter had to do with just what was quoted.

Quote:

1) No mention of specific positions is made in this quote, nor even in the paragraphs before and after it.

It was a private letter. The principles knew what the positions were. There was no need for her to state them.

Quote:

2) The emphatic nature of the statement is cutting BOTH ways. Notice this sentence from the paragraph which follows your quote:
"As to the law in Galatians, I have no burden and never have had and know Brother Smith, Porter, Jones or any one will never be prepared to receive light, either to establish or refute their position until every one of you are men truly converted before God."

It looks like you're misreading this, if you think this is cutting both ways. It's not. The "every one of you" is speaking of "Smith, Porter, Jones" and the others resisting what Waggoner was teaching. It's not referring to Waggoner. This can be verified by looking at her continued correspondence at this time, which is in the 1888 Materials, released by the EGW Estate around 1988.

Quote:

3) Judging by the context, I would say this is most clearly speaking to the motivation, spirit, and/or attitude of those studying the issues, and is NOT addressing the issues themselves.

It's speaking primarily of the issues. The persons referred to in the letter were rejecting "truth." She explained why. It wasn't simply a mental problem of incorrectly rejecting something which shouldn't be rejected. But primarily the issue was that truth was being rejected.

I take it from your remarks that you don't know the background as to what was happening when this letter was written. There is a specific reason as to why she wrote this letter.

Quote:

4) Mrs. White herself takes no sides in the matter in this statement, other than to urge true conversion of heart before taking up this study.

This section talking about the law in Galatians, not the covenants. She wrote that Waggoner's view of the covenants was "clear and convincing" as well as "truth" and that the others were wasting their investigative powers trying to develop a position different than Waggoner's. Really, this is so clear, I don't see how one can argue against it.

When I presented the quote, I remarked I didn't think it would do any good. I've yet to meet someone read this quote and say, "Oh really? Then I wonder what Waggoner's position on the covenant's is. I better find out!" although I would think this would be a natural reaction.

No one researches the specifics. What was going on when this endorsement was made? Why did she make it? If one makes the effort to do this, it's very clear what the points of contention were, what she was endorsing, and why.

Quote:

5) I agree with her on this point.

Do you disagree with the first point, that Waggoner's view on the covenants was "clear and convincing" and "truth"?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/12/08 10:53 PM

Quote:

She doesn't in that statement, but she did later see the law in Galations as the 10 Commandments and the cerimonial law which together make up the Old Covenant.

This is misleading. She makes a specific comment about a specific verse, or 2 verses, which is Gal. 3:24, 25. In 1SM 234, 5 she explains that the Holy Spirit, through the apostle Paul was speaking especially of the moral law (this was in 1892 I think). There was also a secondary consideration, which she mentions later (in 1900 I think) regarding Gal. 3:24, 25.

She really didn't want to get into the issue, and wanted the breathren to hash it out themselves. Waggoner was willing to do so, and she commended him as comporting himself as a Christian gentleman. I am not aware of her ever being critical of Waggoner's conduct, in terms of his spirit or how he treated another. Anyway, he was willing, but his oposition was not. She, I'm tempted to say "nagged" as that seems the most accurate word, them to do so for years in which she wrote them dozens of letters. There are literally hundreds of pages involved. But they steadfastly refused.

She had the insight that more was involved than merely the law in Galatians. She saw that Waggoner had light on righteousness by faith, which is how she saw the issue.

Now there's a reason why Waggoner viewed the law in Galatians as being the moral law. Actually, there are many reasons, and these are brought out in his pamphlet "The Gospel in Galatians" which is available online. I'd encourage anyone interested in the subject to read it. It's very well argued.

Most people see the law in Galatians as dealing with the ceremonial law because they see the issue as dispensational. Waggoner didn't see it that way, and brings out an argument as to why this isn't the right way of looking at things.

Quote:

Strangely enough, many have supposed that there was a definite time fixed for faith to come. This passage has been "interpreted" to mean that men were under the law until a certain time in the history of the world, and that at that time faith came, and then they were henceforth free from the law. The coming of faith they make synonymous with the manifestation of Christ on earth. We can not say that anybody ever thought so, for such an "interpretation" indicates utter absence of thought about the matter. It would make men to be saved in bulk, regardless of any concurrence on their part. It would have it that up to a certain time all were in bondage under the law, and that from that time henceforth all were free from sin. A man's salvation would, therefore, depend simply on the accident of birth. If he lived before a certain time, he would be lost; if after, he would be saved. Such an absurdity need not take more of our time than the statement of it. No one can seriously think of the idea that the apostle is here speaking of a fixed, definite point of time in the history of the world, dividing between two so-called "dispensations," without at once abandoning it.

When, then, does faith come? "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Rom.10:17. Whenever a man receives the Word of God, the word of promise, which brings with it the fullness of the law, and no longer fights against it, but yields to it, then faith comes to him. Read the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, and you will see that faith came from the beginning. Since the days of Abel, men have found freedom by faith. The only time fixed is "now," "to-day." "Now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." "To-day if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts." (The Glad Tidings)

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/13/08 11:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

S: There are a lot of perks to being God’s remnant.

MM: Does the Remnant Church exist today? If so, which church is it?

Hi MM,

I believe God has always had a remnant and I believe that the SDA church has been called to give the message of the judgment to God's church and then to the world.

Does that mean I believe the church organization is the Remnant? Corporately no, but individually yes! I believe God's true church is people with the message of the gospel. Do I support with my finances and baptize people into the organized church? Absolutely, in the hope that they will become one of the remnant that takes the gospel to the world.

I believe that the SDA church was called to preach the everlasting gospel and that gospel is the character of God revealed through Jesus. Jesus spent His whole ministry talking about His Father and when asked by one of His disciples to "show us the Father" Jesus replied, "If you've seen me you've seen the Father!"

Jesus also said that to know God is eternal life! Thus I believe that the true everlasting Gospel is the revelation of the Father's love that Jesus gave us in His life and death. He destroyed all the barriers that kept us from the Father by dispelling all the lies about Him. We can now know, through Jesus, that we have nothing to fear from the Father and that He wants to be our Friend.

This is good news, but Adventism, as a whole, has not continued the reformation and discarded the Penal Atonement Model of Roman and adopted by the Evangelical Churches. We make a big deal about the fact that God doesn't burn the wicked for eternity, but He still is vengeful and vindictive and actually doesn't forgive at all, but demanded payment in full from His innocent Son.

Thus we have one of the God head who can't forgive and one who gives everything. God has called us out of this confusion, but not by prophetic decree. He has planted in our collective mind gems about God in the Great Controversy that no other church has and we know that the judgment is not God judging us, but placing Himself on trial and asking His remnant to vindicate Him of all the lies that He has been accused of.

Once the reformation is complete in the church, represented by the three angel’s messages, it goes to the world, represented by the 4th angel of Revelation 18:1. This last message is the exact same message that Christ taught and that is the loveliness of God's character, the very message that calls us to repentance and has the power to gain victory over self. "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation!" The good news that Jesus taught has the power to save us. And that salvation comes by changing our minds about God.

The question is who will believe Jesus! Even over the prophets! Even over the church! Who will let go everything with both hand and grab onto Jesus alone?

scott

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/14/08 06:09 PM

Scott, I very much appreciate you answering my question. Thank you. Do you think Ellen White is partly to blame for SDAs believing in the atonement the way most do? For example, she wrote:

“By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” (6BC 1095)

“In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” (CON 22)

“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.” (1SM 340)

The NC relied on Jesus paying our sin debt of death on the cross. Law and justice, as established by God Himself, demands death for sin. Jesus' death was required to preserve the honor and integrity of God's law. In so dying, God demonstrated the truth about His law and love. He also thereby safeguarded redeemed and unfallen beings against rebelling in the future.

Is this how you see it, too?

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/14/08 07:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Hi MM,

I don’t see that Ellen has any blame for anything. She came from a Methodist background with a very legal view of the atonement and justice. She wasn’t instantly changed, but over the years saw things that are diametrically opposed to her view. Ellen believed in penal atonement. But she also says many things that do not fit that view. Abraham believed in having multiple wives, but that doesn’t mean He was not called of God.

If you read the 1858 version of the Great Controversy you will find her picture of God much harsher than in the 1905 version after 5 editions. Her view of God softened and she moved from a strictly penal view to a more natural view of the destruction of the wicked.

Why would we assume that the minute God calls a prophet that the person has every theological misunderstanding straightened out immediately? Ellen was a pork eating Sunday keeper when God called her. It took her years to change her mind and her habits. And I think that she is one of the biggest blessings to the church simply because we got to see the prophetic gift in progress for over 60 years and now we know how all the prophets were changed by their message.

Ellen’s message dynamically changed her, but our fundamentalist attitude toward the prophets doesn’t allow for her to grow. If she saw something clearer 10 years after she commented on it last and she changed her position everyone cried, “False prophet”. Remember that she said that she was not infallible. That simply means that she made mistakes!

Does your theology allow her to make mistakes or change her mind as things grew clearer? If not you might want to consider rethinking your position.

scott

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/15/08 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: scott

Does your theology allow her to make mistakes or change her mind as things grew clearer? If not you might want to consider rethinking your position.

Where does she admit to growing and changing her thinking? Where does she admit to having a harsh view of God's justice? Where does she admit to having a tainted view of penal atonement? It would mean more to me to hear it from her.

What about when she quotes holy angels in vision? Is there any evidence to support the idea angels compromised to meet her where she was, that what they told her in vision reflects her tainted theological views at the time? For example:

EW 294, 295
Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, "Amen!" {EW 294.2}

Said the angel, "Satan is the root, his children are the branches. They are now consumed root and branch. They have died an everlasting death. They are never to have a resurrection, and God will have a clean universe." I then looked and saw the fire which had consumed the wicked, burning up the rubbish and purifying the earth. Again I looked and saw the earth purified. {EW 295.1}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/15/08 05:45 PM

Scott, what is your opinion of the following observations:

The NC relied on Jesus paying our sin debt of death on the cross. Law and justice, as established by God Himself, demands death for sin. Jesus' death was required to preserve the honor and integrity of God's law. In so dying, God demonstrated the truth about His law and love. He also thereby safeguarded redeemed and unfallen beings against rebelling in the future.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/15/08 07:29 PM

Hi MM,

The debt we owe to sin is death. Sin is transgression of the law therefore one could say that our debt is owed to the broken law. I agree with this statement, but it means something much different to me that it does to you.

Justice is reconciliation by biblical terms therefore it is justice for God to forgive as well as allow men to destroy themselves.

The integrity of God's law is only as good as God's character since the law is a transcript of God's character. How could a sinner affect the integrity of God's character unless the sinner could provoke God to do something out of character like murder?

Love and law are identical since all of the law can be expressed in "love" and "God is love" and the law is a "transcript of God's character."

Do you really believe that God threatening us will safeguard future rebellion? Do you believe that a violent act from God, so that we all know exactly how vicious He can be against sin, will make us trust Him more?

I prefer to think of love overcoming violence rather than becoming violent itself to survive. Satan invented death and everyone who follows him will die. The question is if God has to kill them or is sin lethal enough to finish the job.

God gave us the cure for sin's folly in Jesus; a cure for death. Some refuse to take it. Does a doctor have to kill his patient who refuses to take the only medicine that will cure them?

scott

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/15/08 07:43 PM

Quote:

By scott: Does your theology allow her to make mistakes or change her mind as things grew clearer? If not you might want to consider rethinking your position.

By MM: Where does she admit to growing and changing her thinking? Where does she admit to having a harsh view of God's justice? Where does she admit to having a tainted view of penal atonement? It would mean more to me to hear it from her.

She changed her mind about the "closed door theory" that she got swept into early in the Advent movement. She quoted medical journals that were wrong. She edited her books and made changes which show that her first views needed revising. And she expressed the same idea, but with a lot less hell fire and brimstone. But most of all she talks about how Jesus changed her and she said that she was not infallible.

If you believe that every word in her writings and/or in the Bible are God’s words and infallible then, by every definition, you are a fundamentalist. Ellen didn’t teach “word inspiration”, but in “thought inspiration.” This simply means that God is not represented in the words, but that He impressed men and inspired them to write things down in their own words. The words are God's impressions in men’s words mixed with men’s thoughts about what God meant in the vision or dream. The written word is an expression of God given by inspired men, but the word made flesh, Jesus, is the perfect word of God and His exact expression.

scott

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/16/08 02:47 AM

Quote:

By MM: Where does she admit to growing and changing her thinking?

Here's a quote of hers:

Quote:

God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things. (3SM 217)

What a great quote! I've been saying this for a long time now. I didn't know there was an EGW quote to say it!

In regards to your question, all one needs to do to know that she evolved in her thinking is to read her works and, as she advises, use some common sense!

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/18/08 04:03 PM

Originally Posted By: scott

Quote:

Without going into details at this time, suffice it to say that I have done some extensive work (as in job-related) with Ellen White's writings. In doing this, I have many times run across statements which I did not know existed. It's been fun to learn new things about her.

Scott, in your above quote, I see you as missing the mark slightly. What you have said is partly correct, and partly incorrect. Mrs. White explains much regarding the changes that were made in her writings from time to time, such as with the Great Controversy. These changes were not necessarily due to her perspective having changed, but were frequently due to the fact that the book was being republished with a view to a different audience.

The Great Controversy was first published for the edification of the church. Later editions removed certain portions to make it more acceptable for door-to-door colporteur work among non-members. It is simultaneously true, however, that at times Mrs. White took advantage of the opportunity to correct things which had been clarified in her mind from the time of the original publication.

Sorry to not include them already, but I will try to find some quotes to demonstrate this. (It's often difficult, in view of such a broad database of publications, to remember where I've seen something, or what key words I might recall it by...but I will try.)

Meanwhile, Scott, I quite agree with your statements regarding "thought inspiration" in Ellen White's writings. I do wonder, however, how you feel Paul is any different? Personally, I can make a strong case to say that Paul's words are over-analyzed in today's theological circles, when Paul himself was not focused so much on the words as upon the thoughts...e.g. the word "law."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 07/18/08 04:51 PM

Here are some of the quotes. These are not the best ones that I remember reading, but they are sufficient to show why some of the later publications were "softened," especially the last two quotes. My apologies in advance for those last two being in caps--that's just copy/pasted from the original, and it means those are the words of the publishers, and not of Mrs. White herself.

Originally Posted By: Mrs. White's books

Chapter on Time of Trouble.--We have just read the matter in regard to the time of trouble. Brother Smith thinks that chapter by no means should be left out of Volume 4. He says there is not a sentence in it that is not essentially needed. This seemed to make a very deep impression upon his mind and I thought I would write to you in reference to this matter. I have read it and it has just a thrilling power with it. I see nothing that will exclude it from the book for general sale among unbelievers. [THE BOOK WAS PUBLISHED BY THE PACIFIC PRESS IN LATE SEPTEMBER, 1884, AND GAINED FAVORABLE NOTICE: "THE GREAT CONTROVERSY, VOL. IV: THIS VOLUME, SO LONG LOOKED FOR, IS NOW OUT. AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL MORE THAN MEET THE EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE WHO HAVE ANXIOUSLY WAITED FOR IT. WE JUDGE FROM OUR OWN READING OF IT; WE FOUND THE CONTENTS OF DEEPER INTEREST THAN OUR IMAGINATION COULD HAVE REACHED."--SIGNS OF THE TIMES, OCT. 2, 1884,--COMPILERS.] --Letter 59, 1884. {3SM 111.1}

Scenes Presented Anew While Writing.--While writing the manuscript of "Great Controversy," I was often conscious of the presence of the angels of God. And many times the scenes about which I was writing were presented to me anew in visions of the night, so that they were fresh and vivid in my mind.--Letter 56, 1911. {3SM 112.1}

CONSIDER FOR A FEW MOMENTS THE CHAPTER IN THE FIRST EDITION OF GREAT CONTROVERSY, VOLUME IV, PUBLISHED BY PACIFIC PRESS IN 1884. IN CHAPTER XXVII, "THE SNARES OF SATAN," YOU FIND THAT ABOUT FOUR PAGES IN THE LATTER PART OF THE CHAPTER WERE OMITTED FROM THE LATER EDITIONS OF GREAT CONTROVERSY. THESE FOUR PAGES ARE TO BE FOUND IN TESTIMONIES TO MINISTERS, PAGES 472 TO 475. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THESE FOUR PAGES IS VERY VALUABLE TO SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS AND WAS VERY APPROPRIATELY INCLUDED IN THE FIRST EDITION OF GREAT CONTROVERSY, VOLUME IV, WHICH WHEN IT WAS PUBLISHED WAS LIKE THE OTHER VOLUMES CONSIDERED TO BE A MESSAGE ESPECIALLY TO SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, AND TO [ALL] CHRISTIAN PEOPLE SYMPATHIZING WITH THEM IN BELIEFS AND AIMS. {3SM 452.6} [Selected Messages Book 3 (1980)]

IN GREAT CONTROVERSY, VOLUME IV, PUBLISHED IN 1885, IN THE CHAPTER "SNARES OF SATAN," THERE ARE THREE PAGES OR MORE OF MATTER THAT WAS NOT USED IN THE LATER EDITIONS, WHICH WERE PREPARED TO BE SOLD TO THE MULTITUDES BY OUR CANVASSERS. IT IS MOST EXCELLENT AND INTERESTING READING FOR SABBATHKEEPERS, AS IT POINTS OUT THE WORK THAT SATAN WILL DO IN PERSUADING POPULAR MINISTERS AND CHURCH MEMBERS TO ELEVATE THE SUNDAY SABBATH, AND TO PERSECUTE SABBATHKEEPERS. [CURRENTLY FOUND IN TESTIMONIES TO MINISTERS, PP. 472-475.] {3SM 443.4}

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/19/08 04:12 AM

Originally Posted By: scott

The debt we owe to sin is death. Sin is transgression of the law therefore one could say that our debt is owed to the broken law. I agree with this statement, but it means something much different to me that it does to you.

Scott, it would be helpful if you included inspired quotes to back up your assertions. Otherwise, I have no idea if you are telling the truth. Since the “wages of sin is death”, how can we say, We owe sin ... (anything)? Sin owes sinners, not the other way around, right?

Originally Posted By: scott

Justice is reconciliation by biblical terms therefore it is justice for God to forgive as well as allow men to destroy themselves.

Mercy and justice are in tension. They are not synonymous. I like how she explains it in the following quotes:

Quote:

Christ came to give to the world an example of what perfect humanity might be when united with divinity. He presented to the world a new phase of greatness in His exhibition of mercy, compassion, and love. He gave to men a new interpretation of God. As head of humanity, He taught men lessons in the science of divine government, whereby He revealed the righteousness of the reconciliation of mercy and justice. {1SM 260.2}

The reconciliation of mercy and justice did not involve any compromise with sin, or ignore any claim of justice; but by giving to each divine attribute its ordained place, mercy could be exercised in the punishment of sinful, impenitent man without destroying its clemency or forfeiting its compassionate character, and justice could be exercised in forgiving the repenting transgressor without violating its integrity. {1SM 260.2}

All this could be, because Christ laid hold of the nature of man, and partook of the divine attributes, and planted His cross between humanity and divinity, bridging the gulf that separated the sinner from God. {1SM 261.1}

The rainbow of promise encircling the throne on high is an everlasting testimony that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). It testifies to the universe that God will never forsake His people in their struggle with evil. It is an assurance to us of strength and protection as long as the throne itself shall endure. {AG 70.2}

As the bow in the cloud is formed by the union of the sunlight and the shower, so the rainbow encircling the throne represents the combined power of mercy and justice. It is not justice alone that is to be maintained; for this would eclipse the glory of the rainbow of promise above the throne; man could see only the penalty of the law. Were there no justice, no penalty, there would be no stability to the government of God. {AG 70.3}

It is the mingling of judgment and mercy that makes salvation full and complete. It is the blending of the two that leads us, as we view the world's Redeemer and the law of Jehovah, to exclaim, "Thy gentleness hath made me great" (2 Sam. 22:36). We know that the gospel is a perfect and complete system, revealing the immutability of the law of God. . . . Mercy invites us to enter through the gates into the city of God, and justice is sacrificed to accord to every obedient soul full privileges as a member of the royal family, a child of the heavenly King. {AG 70.4}

By faith let us look upon the rainbow round about the throne, the cloud of sins confessed behind it. The rainbow of promise is an assurance to every humble, contrite, believing soul, that his life is one with Christ, and that Christ is one with God. The wrath of God will not fall upon one soul that seeks refuge in Him. God Himself has declared, "When I see the blood, I will pass over you." "The bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant" (Ex. 12:13; Gen. 9:16). {AG 70.5}

I like how she explains the difference between mercy and justice in the context of Jesus’ life and death – both of which were required by law for God to earn the legal right to offer penitent sinners mercy, pardon, and salvation. Jesus had to die because law and justice demand death for sin. Otherwise, sinners would have to die for their own sins. In reality, the human race would have ended with the immediate death of Adam and Eve if Jesus had not volunteered to be the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Originally Posted By: scott

The integrity of God's law is only as good as God's character since the law is a transcript of God's character. How could a sinner affect the integrity of God's character unless the sinner could provoke God to do something out of character like murder? Love and law are identical since all of the law can be expressed in "love" and "God is love" and the law is a "transcript of God's character."

The law cannot pardon; it can only condemn. Nor can the law save us. God, of course, is not like the law in these ways.

Originally Posted By: scott

Do you really believe that God threatening us will safeguard future rebellion? Do you believe that a violent act from God, so that we all know exactly how vicious He can be against sin, will make us trust Him more? I prefer to think of love overcoming violence rather than becoming violent itself to survive.

Your questions assume God is violent and that He threatens sinners. Neither assumption is true; therefore, your questions cannot be answered. God has never been violent, nor has He ever threatened anyone.

Originally Posted By: scott

Satan invented death and everyone who follows him will die. The question is if God has to kill them or is sin lethal enough to finish the job.

Satan did not invent sin or death. Neither one were possible until after God created FMAs. True, Satan was the first FMA to sin, but he did not invent it. If sin kills sinners, why hasn’t it killed Satan yet? Why doesn’t it kill us the moment we sin? Why did God have to bar access to the tree of life if sin kills sinners?

EW 51
I was pointed to Adam and Eve in Eden. They partook of the forbidden tree and were driven from the garden, and then the flaming sword was placed around the tree of life, lest they should partake of its fruit and be immortal sinners. The tree of life was to perpetuate immortality. I heard an angel ask, "Who of the family of Adam have passed the flaming sword and have partaken of the tree of life?" I heard another angel answer, "Not one of Adam's family has passed that flaming sword and partaken of that tree; therefore there is not an immortal sinner. The soul that sinneth it shall die an everlasting death--a death that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {EW 51.2}

Originally Posted By: scott

God gave us the cure for sin's folly in Jesus; a cure for death. Some refuse to take it. Does a doctor have to kill his patient who refuses to take the only medicine that will cure them?

Your analogy overlooks an important aspect of the picture. It pertains only to the first death. Can a doctor resurrect sinners and judge them, and then punish them in duration and in proportion to their sinfulness? Can sin do it?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/19/08 04:35 AM

Originally Posted By: scott

Quote:

What about when she quotes holy angels in vision? Is there any evidence to support the idea angels compromised to meet her where she was, that what they told her in vision reflects her tainted theological views at the time? For example:

EW 294, 295
Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, "Amen!" {EW 294.2}

Said the angel, "Satan is the root, his children are the branches. They are now consumed root and branch. They have died an everlasting death. They are never to have a resurrection, and God will have a clean universe." I then looked and saw the fire which had consumed the wicked, burning up the rubbish and purifying the earth. Again I looked and saw the earth purified. {EW 295.1}

Originally Posted By: scott

If you believe that every word in her writings and/or in the Bible are God’s words and infallible then, by every definition, you are a fundamentalist. Ellen didn’t teach “word inspiration”, but in “thought inspiration.” This simply means that God is not represented in the words, but that He impressed men and inspired them to write things down in their own words. The words are God's impressions in men’s words mixed with men’s thoughts about what God meant in the vision or dream.

Are you suggesting we cannot take God at His word? Do you aagree with the following insight:

GC V.4
The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself, and were written by His own hand. They are of divine, and not of human composition. But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." John 1:14. {GC v.4}

And, do you agree with these insights:

GC VI.1
Written in different ages, by men who differed widely in rank and occupation, and in mental and spiritual endowments, the books of the Bible present a wide contrast in style, as well as a diversity in the nature of the subjects unfolded. Different forms of expression are employed by different writers; often the same truth is more strikingly presented by one than by another. And as several writers present a subject under varied aspects and relations, there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to be discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with clearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony. {GC vi.1}

Originally Posted By: scott

The written word is an expression of God given by inspired men, but the word made flesh, Jesus, is the perfect word of God and His exact expression.

Where does your description of Jesus come from? Did God write it Himself? Did He dictate it? Or, was it written by men? If so, how can you trust it any more than the OT? Can it be that the entire Bible, in spite of its inspired discrepancies, is the infallible word of God? Shouldn't we build it up, encourage confidence in it?

3SM 306
There are men who think they have made wonderful discoveries in science. They quote the opinions of learned men as though they considered them infallible and teach the deductions of science as truths that cannot be controverted. And the Word of God, which is given as a lamp to the feet of the world-weary traveler, is judged by this standard, and pronounced wanting. {3SM 306.2}

SR 368
Some who professed to be zealous believers in the message rejected the Word of God as the one infallible guide, and, claiming to be led by the Spirit, gave themselves up to the control of their own feelings, impressions, and imaginations. There were some who manifested a blind and bigoted zeal, denouncing all who would not sanction their course. Their fanatical ideas and exercises met with no sympathy from the great body of Adventists; yet they served to bring reproach upon the cause of truth. {SR 368.1}

UL 37
We need a more firm reliance upon a "Thus saith the Lord." If we have this, we shall not trust to feeling, and be ruled by feeling. God asks us to rest in His love. It is our privilege to know the Word of God as a sure and tried guide, an infallible assurance. Let us work on the faith side of the question. Let us believe and trust, and talk faith and hope and courage. Let the praise of God be in our hearts and on our lips oftener than it is. "Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me" (Ps. 50:23). Keep the mind stayed upon God, and know the love of Christ as the Word of God reveals it. This Word is life. Talk of Christ; call others to behold Him as your Redeemer. {UL 37.4}

4T 312
Said Christ: "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me." The Bible is an unerring guide. It demands perfect purity in word, in thought, and in action. Only virtuous and spotless characters will be permitted to enter the presence of a pure and holy God. The word of God, if studied and obeyed, would lead the children of men, as the Israelites were led by a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day. The Bible is God's will expressed to man. It is the only perfect standard of character, and marks out the duty of man in every circumstance of life. There are many responsibilities resting upon us in this life, a neglect of which will not only cause suffering to ourselves, but others will sustain loss in consequence. {4T 312.2}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/19/08 04:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall

Quote:

By MM: Where does she admit to growing and changing her thinking? Where does she admit to having a harsh view of God's justice? Where does she admit to having a tainted view of penal atonement? It would mean more to me to hear it from her.

Here's a quote of hers:

Quote:

God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things. (3SM 217)

Tom, you seem to be implying that although she doesn't admit to having a harsh view of God's character earlier in her writings, it is obvious as one compares her earlier works with her more recent works. But doesn't this rely on opinion rather than inspiration? So, it would mean more to me to hear it from her. Where does she say such a thing?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/19/08 07:28 AM

Quote:

You asked, "Where does she admit to growing and changing her thinking?"

I was responding to this question when I said:

Quote:

all one needs to do to know that she evolved in her thinking is to read her works and, as she advises, use some common sense!

Quote:

But doesn't this rely on opinion rather than inspiration?

No! I quoted her in saying we should use common sense. So inspiration agrees!

Quote:

So, it would mean more to me to hear it from her. Where does she say such a thing?

I quoted it right above my what I said! In fact, it's in the part you quoted that I'm responding to.

Ellen White was a teenager when she started her prophetic ministry, and quite an elderly lady when she end it. Do you know anybody whose thinking did not change in the course of 70 years? Indeed, wouldn't it be very sad it if it didn't?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/21/08 03:34 PM

Tom, I addressed these questions to Scott. They were asked in a specific context, which had to with Sister White evolving from a harsh view of God to a kinder, gentler view. I would like to know from either you or Scott where she admits to such a thing. Did she ever admit that she grew in such a way.

That is, did she ever say, Earlier in my ministry I wrote stuff that reflected a harsh view of God, but I was young and ill informed, nowadays my views are more accurate, they represent the truth about God, about His love and mercy and compassion. I no longer believe He directly or personally punishes or destroys impenitent sinners. Instead, I have come to realize and believe He reluctantly withdraws His loving protection and either commands holy angels to allow man and nature to unleash their pent up power, or He gives evil angels permission to manipulate man and nature to cause destruction proportionate to the sinfulness of the person or people who have resisted and rejected His loving entreaties and protection.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/21/08 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

Originally Posted By: scott

Quote:

Hi GC,

Why mention just Paul? Couldn't we also say the same thing about John, James, or Peter? Or is it Paul that disagrees with your interpretation of "law" therefore you choose to pit him against James rather than find them in agreement?

I see the Bible writers of the OT as dynamically different than those writing the NT simply because of Pentecost. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit made the Apostles understand how Jesus was the fulfillment of the whole Jewish economy. Their writings are not to be added to the OT writings, but are an exegesis of the OT. In other words the NT is an explanation of the OT, not an addition to it.

If I want to know what the OT meant I need to go to the source, the NT, to see. This is where God revealed it! To go back to the OT to discover "new doctrine" over and above the writings of the NT is reject the apostolic authority in which the church of Christ is built. This is and has been the reason there is so much division in the NT church and especially in rogue Adventist circles. If we could all agree on what the Apostles taught, the gospel of Jesus, there would be no schism in the church. Denominationalism is the sin of the church that stands in direct disobedience of Jesus' command to love one another and that we are to be one in Him exactly like He is One with the Father.

Where do you get the authority to disagree with Paul's interpretation of the OT? It isn't from God!

scott

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/21/08 06:15 PM

Quote:

by scott:
The debt we owe to sin is death. Sin is transgression of the law therefore one could say that our debt is owed to the broken law. I agree with this statement, but it means something much different to me that it does to you.

by MM:
Scott, it would be helpful if you included inspired quotes to back up your assertions. Otherwise, I have no idea if you are telling the truth. Since the “wages of sin is death”, how can we say, We owe sin ... (anything)? Sin owes sinners, not the other way around, right?

Hi MM,

That is exactly right! Sin owes sinners death. We sin, we die! The debt we owe to God is gratitude for salvation. Even those who reject His salvation owe praise to Him! And, MM, if you haven’t noticed, I don’t play the “inspired quote” game. I have the right to think for myself and put things in my own words. I’m not a parrot believing that the parrot that knows the most quotes is right. To be a Rabbi one had to memorize the entire five books of Moses by the age of 12 and the entire OT by the age of 30. The ones who crucified Jesus knew their “inspired quote(s)” much better than you and I. What they failed to do was to internalize them and understand them and to put them in their own words.

scott

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 07/21/08 06:40 PM

Quote:

By scott: Justice is reconciliation by biblical terms therefore it is justice for God to forgive as well as allow men to destroy themselves.

By MM: Mercy and justice are in tension. They are not synonymous. I like how she explains it in the following quotes:

I find your view very interesting considering these texts:

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Zecharaiah:7:9

"Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isaiah 1:17)

"This is what the LORD says: "`Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed" (Jeremiah 21:12)

These texts say that to administer justice is to show mercy and compassion, defend the weak and disenfranchised, encourage the oppressed, and rescue the oppressed from the oppressor.

Mercy seems to be the true purpose of justice! I see no tension at all! Remember it was Satan who claimed that God couldn't be merciful and just at the same time thus separating them. It seems like God's intention to bring them back together into one.

scott

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 07/21/08 06:54 PM

Quote:

Tom, I addressed these questions to Scott. They were asked in a specific context, which had to with Sister White evolving from a harsh view of God to a kinder, gentler view.

That wasn't the context. Here's the context. Scott asked:

Quote:

Does your theology allow her to make mistakes or change her mind as things grew clearer? If not you might want to consider rethinking your position.

To which you responded:

Quote:

Where does she admit to growing and changing her thinking?

Scott was asking a general question, which is if your theology allows for Ellen White's thinking to grow and change. My comment was along the same line.

Quote:

I would like to know from either you or Scott where she admits to such a thing. Did she ever admit that she grew in such a way.

MM, Here's the full context of what Scott said:

Quote:

Why would we assume that the minute God calls a prophet that the person has every theological misunderstanding straightened out immediately? Ellen was a pork eating Sunday keeper when God called her. It took her years to change her mind and her habits. And I think that she is one of the biggest blessings to the church simply because we got to see the prophetic gift in progress for over 60 years and now we know how all the prophets were changed by their message.

Ellen’s message dynamically changed her, but our fundamentalist attitude toward the prophets doesn’t allow for her to grow. If she saw something clearer 10 years after she commented on it last and she changed her position everyone cried, “False prophet”. Remember that she said that she was not infallible. That simply means that she made mistakes!

Does your theology allow her to make mistakes or change her mind as things grew clearer? If not you might want to consider rethinking your position.

You stated that the questions were addressed to Scott in the specific context having to do with Sister White evolving from a harsh view of God to a kinder one, but I'm not seeing where Scott said that. Did I miss something? Where did he say this?

Quote:

That is, did she ever say, Earlier in my ministry I wrote stuff that reflected a harsh view of God, but I was young and ill informed, nowadays my views are more accurate, they represent the truth about God, about His love and mercy and compassion. I no longer believe He directly or personally punishes or destroys impenitent sinners. Instead, I have come to realize and believe He reluctantly withdraws His loving protection and either commands holy angels to allow man and nature to unleash their pent up power, or He gives evil angels permission to manipulate man and nature to cause destruction proportionate to the sinfulness of the person or people who have resisted and rejected His loving entreaties and protection.

Let's first establish if your question has something to do with what was actually posted. However, I would be interested in pursuing your answer in regards to what Scott actually did ask. He asked:

In the case of resurrected sinners, I suppose executing the death penalty is mercy killing.

Originally Posted By: scott

Your point that the law cannot pardon is simply because the law only told us what righteousness is. In the ceremonial system we have symbols of forgiveness and salvation, but it wasn’t until Jesus came that we saw what God is really like. What the law couldn’t do, express God’s character perfectly, Jesus did by coming in the flesh.

Thus, the law is not a perfect or complete reflection of the character of God, right? It lacks certain things, namely, the legal right to be merciful, to pardon, and the power to save sinners. On the flip side, though, it does reflect the character of God in that it condemns sinners to death.

“And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” Exodus 34:6, 7.

Originally Posted By: scott

You are the one that insists God is violent and threatening and then you say, “God has never been violent, nor has He ever threatened anyone.” Do you really believe that violence and threatenings are only a matter of who does them?

Yes. The following insight makes sense to me:

LDE 241
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 241.2, 3}

Originally Posted By: scott

The phrase “exact representation” is the Greek word “karakter” or character. The text simply says that God spoke to us in the past through the language of the prophets, but now speaks through His Son who is the exact character of the Father and the radiance of His glory. This strongly implies that the prophets represented less than the exact character of the Father and were not the radiance of His glory.

Scott, what is your primary source of authoritative information about Jesus? And, how does He speak to you?

Originally Posted By: scott

I believe that the NT clearly places Christ as an authority over the prophets. You are the one that suggests differently. Maybe you could supply me with all the quotes from the scriptures where the written word claims infallibility. This I would really like to see!

Scott, you seem to be suggesting that the Bible does not claim to be the infallible Word of God. By implication, then, aren’t you also saying the Bible is fallible? I’m not comfortable with this idea. If the Bible doesn’t claim to be infallible does it mean it is fallible? I don’t think so. I agree with Sister White:

1SM 416
When God's Word is studied, comprehended, and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, "It is written." Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.-- The Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1885. {1SM 416.2}

The following passages imply it is wrong to go against the Word of God, which also implies the Word of God is right. Since we are required to live by “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” how can we say the Bible, the Word of God, is anything but infallible? Therefore, I am convinced the Bible is totally and completely infallible, that the discrepancies it contains are inspired, too. That is, God purposely allowed them to be admitted in the Bible. They, too, serve a high and holy purpose. They are not in the Bible by accident, or because the men who wrote them were not being guided by God.

Matthew
4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Mark
7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Luke
8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

John
10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Acts
4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Romans
10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

2 Corinthians
2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

1 Thessalonians
2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

1 Timothy
4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Hebrews
4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

1 Peter
1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 07/23/08 07:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Scott asked, "Does your theology allow her to make mistakes or change her mind as things grew clearer?" Does it?

Yes, I believe she grew in her understanding of the truths God revealed to her. I do not, however, believe God revealed things to her later on that contradicted what He revealed to her earlier on. I cannot think of an example of her learning something later on that led her to realize she was wrong, or that led her to change her thinking on a particular point of truth. Can you?

In particular, can you think of her ever saying something to effect - Earlier in my ministry I wrote stuff that reflected a harsh view of God, but I was young and ill informed, nowadays my views are more accurate, they represent the truth about God, about His love and mercy and compassion. I no longer believe He directly or personally punishes or destroys impenitent sinners. Instead, I have come to realize and believe He reluctantly withdraws His loving protection and either commands holy angels to allow man and nature to unleash their pent up power, or He gives evil angels permission to manipulate man and nature to cause destruction proportionate to the sinfulness of the person or people who have resisted and rejected His loving entreaties and protection.

Originally Posted By: scott

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: Tom

Scott asked, "Does your theology allow her to make mistakes or change her mind as things grew clearer?" Does it?

Quote:

Scott, I have not read where Sister White wrote - I no longer believe the things God initially revealed to me. Neither have you quoted her.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 08/11/08 08:46 PM

Originally Posted By: scott

Quote:

Not that the law lacks “the legal right to be merciful”, but that the law lacks the revelation of God’s mercy.

Quote:

By MM: On the flip side, though, it does reflect the character of God in that it condemns sinners to death.

This offends me that you could say such things about God after Jesus spent so much time talking about God’s acceptance and revealing His love.

Quote:

Sinners condemn themselves to death and God cries like a mother morns over her dead child!

Scott, do you agree that the law condemns sinners to death?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 08/11/08 09:25 PM

I should have said, "Welcome back!" on my other post. Welcome back.

Quote:

Scott, I have not read where Sister White wrote - I no longer believe the things God initially revealed to me. Neither have you quoted her.

MM, I have not read where Scott wrote - Ellen White came to the point where she no longer believed the things God initially revealed to her. Neither have you quoted him.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 08/11/08 09:29 PM

Regarding your question as to whether God condemns sinners, the following speaks to this:

Quote:

The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.(GC 541, emphasis mine)

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 08/13/08 05:41 PM

Thank you, Tom, for welcoming me back. The Lord truly blessed in the youth tent at campmeeting in the maritime province of Nova Scotia where I was a speaker. But it's good to be back home. I very much missed my "most lovely". A cool thing happened while there: a rep from R&H asked me to write a devotional book for youth and young adults.

For convenience I am reposting the following:

Quote:

Post #100897

Mountain Man: Scott, I very much appreciate you answering my question. Thank you. Do you think Ellen White is partly to blame for SDAs believing in the atonement the way most do? For example, she wrote:

“By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” (6BC 1095)

“In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” (CON 22)

“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.” (1SM 340)

The NC relied on Jesus paying our sin debt of death on the cross. Law and justice, as established by God Himself, demands death for sin. Jesus' death was required to preserve the honor and integrity of God's law. In so dying, God demonstrated the truth about His law and love. He also thereby safeguarded redeemed and unfallen beings against rebelling in the future.

Is this how you see it, too?

Scott: Hi MM,

I don’t see that Ellen has any blame for anything. She came from a Methodist background with a very legal view of the atonement and justice. She wasn’t instantly changed, but over the years saw things that are diametrically opposed to her view. Ellen believed in penal atonement. But she also says many things that do not fit that view. Abraham believed in having multiple wives, but that doesn’t mean He was not called of God.

If you read the 1858 version of the Great Controversy you will find her picture of God much harsher than in the 1905 version after 5 editions. Her view of God softened and she moved from a strictly penal view to a more natural view of the destruction of the wicked.

Why would we assume that the minute God calls a prophet that the person has every theological misunderstanding straightened out immediately? Ellen was a pork eating Sunday keeper when God called her. It took her years to change her mind and her habits. And I think that she is one of the biggest blessings to the church simply because we got to see the prophetic gift in progress for over 60 years and now we know how all the prophets were changed by their message.

Ellen’s message dynamically changed her, but our fundamentalist attitude toward the prophets doesn’t allow for her to grow. If she saw something clearer 10 years after she commented on it last and she changed her position everyone cried, “False prophet”. Remember that she said that she was not infallible. That simply means that she made mistakes!

Does your theology allow her to make mistakes or change her mind as things grew clearer? If not you might want to consider rethinking your position.

Scott wrote - "If you read the 1858 version of the Great Controversy you will find her picture of God much harsher than in the 1905 version after 5 editions. Her view of God softened and she moved from a strictly penal view to a more natural view of the destruction of the wicked."

Do you agree with him?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 08/13/08 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Regarding your question as to whether God condemns sinners, the following speaks to this:

Quote:

The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.(GC 541, emphasis mine)

Tom, my question was - "Scott, do you agree that the law condemns sinners to death?" What thinkest thou?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 08/13/08 09:01 PM

Quote:

I would say that Ellen White's views matured over time, and that, as any growing Christian, she came to know and understand God, and the Plan of Salvation, better as she grew older, and this fact is reflected in her writings.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 08/13/08 09:04 PM

Old T:Regarding your question as to whether God condemns sinners, the following speaks to this:

Old M:The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.(GC 541, emphasis mine)

M:Tom, my question was - "Scott, do you agree that the law condemns sinners to death?" What thinkest thou?

T:Yes, in the same sense that God does. That is, the destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice; their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves. This choice is recognized by God, and the law, and thus God (or the law) condemns them. Basically they are choosing sin, which results in death, which both God and the law recognize as being the case.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 08/13/08 09:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: Tom

Regarding your question as to whether God condemns sinners, the following speaks to this:

Quote:

The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.(GC 541, emphasis mine)

Tom, my question was - "Scott, do you agree that the law condemns sinners to death?" What thinkest thou?

Hi MM,

Welcome back!!!! Glad you had so much success with the youth!

To answer your question yes or no would not do justice to either the question or the answer because you might hear what I'm not saying.

Let’s define some thoughts about the law and see where we agree:

The principle of the law is love for God and love for our fellow man. Would you agree?

The law is a transcript of God's character! Would you agree with that?

A transcript is simply a written description of God's character. Therefore the law is summed up in "be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect". The true law, therefore, is the perfect standard of righteousness (i.e. God's character of love) Would you agree with this so far?

scott

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 08/14/08 03:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Quote:

But do you agree with Scott that her earlier view of God was harsh and softened over the years?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 08/14/08 03:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Old T:Regarding your question as to whether God condemns sinners, the following speaks to this:

"The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.(GC 541, emphasis mine)

M:Tom, my question was - "Scott, do you agree that the law condemns sinners to death?" What thinkest thou?

T:Yes, in the same sense that God does. That is, the destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice; their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves. This choice is recognized by God, and the law, and thus God (or the law) condemns them. Basically they are choosing sin, which results in death, which both God and the law recognize as being the case.

Thank you.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 08/14/08 03:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Scott

Quote:

Scott, do you agree that the law condemns sinners to death? What thinkest thou?

Yes, on all accounts. Also, thank you for the congrats. God is good. Thank you Jesus.

Posted By: scott

Re: The Covenants - 08/14/08 07:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: Scott

Quote:

Scott, do you agree that the law condemns sinners to death? What thinkest thou?

Yes, on all accounts. Also, thank you for the congrats. God is good. Thank you Jesus.

Thanks for your answer, MM!

The 10 Commandments are an expression of the true law, the true standard of righteousness, God’s character of love. Would you agree?

The 10 Commandments are not a full expression of God’s character of love simply because we only see the standard and they stand there in condemnation of anyone who breaks them (which is all of us). Would you agree?

Jesus was, and is, a full expression of God’s character of love because we can see God in His fullness, God’s true humility, God’s willing forgiveness, God’s gentleness and love toward those who are caught in sin’s bondage, God’s mercy, God’s non condemning spirit, God’s grace in its fullness! Would you agree with this statement?

scott

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 08/15/08 08:06 PM

Yes, the 10Cs are a transcript of God's loving character. They condone righteousness and condemn unrighteousness. By living and dying the perfect life and death, Jesus demonstrated that the law is both holy and just, that holiness and justice are inseparable aspects of the law and character of God.

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Exodus 20:5, 6. "The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." Numbers 14:18.

Do you agree with the following insights regarding the law of God and the law of Moses?

Quote:

Law Suited to Holy Order of Beings.-- The Sabbath of the fourth commandment was instituted in Eden. After God had made the world, and created man upon the earth, He made the Sabbath for man. After Adam's sin and fall nothing was taken from the law of God. The principles of the ten commandments existed before the fall, and where of a character suited to the condition of a holy order of beings. After the fall, the principles of those precepts were not changed, but additional precepts were given to meet man in his fallen state (3SG 295). {1BC 1104.3}

Worded to Meet Fallen Intelligences.-- The law of Jehovah dating back to creation, was comprised in the two great principles, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." These two great principles embrace the first four commandments, showing the duty of man to God, and the last six, showing the duty of man to his fellowman. The principles were more explicitly stated to man after the fall, and worded to meet the case of fallen intelligences. This was necessary in consequence of the minds of men being blinded by transgression (ST April 15, 1875). {1BC 1104.4}

The law of God existed before the creation of man or else Adam could not have sinned. After the transgression of Adam the principles of the law were not changed, but were definitely arranged and expressed to meet man in his fallen condition. Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the son of God (Ibid., March 14, 1878). {1BC 1104.5}

Precepts Given to Guard Decalogue.-- In consequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai. Christ gave to Moses religious precepts which were to govern everyday life. These statutes were explicitly given to guard the ten commandments. They were not shadowy types to pass away with the death of Christ. They were to be binding upon men in every age as long as time should last. These commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law (Ibid., April 15, 1875). {1BC 1104.6}

(Isa. 58:13, 14). Every Specification Is God's Character.-- The God of heaven has placed a benediction upon them that keep the commandments of God. Shall we stand as a peculiar people of God, or shall we trample upon the law of God and say it is not binding? God might just as well have abolished Himself. In the law every specification is the character of the infinite God (MS 12, 1894). {1BC 1104.7}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 08/15/08 08:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Quote:

But do you agree with Scott that her earlier view of God was harsh and softened over the years?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 08/16/08 07:15 AM

First of all, it looks to me like you misquoted Scott a bit. He didn't say her view was "harsh" before, did he? He said the earlier view was "harsher" than the later view, not that it was "harsh." This may be a minor point, but I think you should be careful in representing what other's say. By the way, quoting someone is a good way to avoid this problem.

I don't disagree with Scott's main point. However, I would express it the way I said:

Quote:

Re: The Covenants - 08/27/08 08:37 PM

Originally Posted By: scott

There is a multitude of these types of statements that do not agree with the penal atonement model which teaches that Jesus’ atonement was to change God’s mind about us rather than our mind about God.

Of course the penal, substitutionary death of Jesus did not change God's mind about wanting to do whatever it takes to save penitent sinners. God bound Himself by His word and by His law to execute the death penalty in consequence of man's sin. Here is how the SOP worded it:

CON 21, 22
But a plan was devised that the sentence of death should rest upon a Substitute. In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin.... And thus Christ would fully vindicate His Father's law. {Con 21.3}

1SM 308
Through disobedience Adam fell. The law of God had been broken. The divine government had been dishonored, and justice demanded that the penalty of transgression be paid. {1SM 308.1}

AG 139
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}

FLB 102
These lessons were taught to the chosen people of God thousands of years ago, and repeated in various symbols and figures, that the work of truth might be riveted in every heart, that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. . . . Justice demanded the sufferings of man; but Christ rendered the sufferings of a God. He needed no atonement of suffering for Himself; all His sufferings were for us; all His merits and holiness were open to fallen man, presented as a gift. {FLB 102.4}

FE 283
When all hope was excluded from Adam and Eve in consequence of transgression and sin, when justice demanded the death of the sinner, Christ gave Himself to be a sacrifice for the sin of the world. The world was under condemnation. Christ became substitute and surety for man. {FE 283.1}

PP 325
Love no less than justice demanded that for this sin judgment should be inflicted. God is the guardian as well as the sovereign of His people. He cuts off those who are determined upon rebellion, that they may not lead others to ruin. {PP 325.2}

PP 492
Like the men before the Flood, the Canaanites lived only to blaspheme Heaven and defile the earth. And both love and justice demanded the prompt execution of these rebels against God and foes to man. {PP 492.2}

Originally Posted By: scott

Even though she seems to adhere to the penal view she makes countless statement that don’t agree with that view thus softening the view.

Let's take a look at the quotes you posted (my comments follow her quotes):

"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government...(DA 22) Correct. Destroying impenitent sinners with water and fire were not acts of force; instead, they were divine acts of punishment. Which is something man has no right to do.

"Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. (GC 35, 36) God never caused or permitted evil to befall impenitent sinners without righteous reasons.

"God does not force the will or judgment of any. (GC 541) True.

"God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. {DA 759.1} Of course not. In the end, Satan's destruction in the lake of is justified.

"God desired to teach them that from His own love comes the gift which reconciles them to Himself. {DA 112} Yes, and that gift involved Jesus paying our sin debt of death on the cross.

"The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; {7ABC 464.2} True, it included other important aspects as well.

"As the Saviour is lifted up before the people, they will see his humiliation, his self-denial, his self-sacrifice, his goodness, his tender compassion, his sufferings to save fallen man, and will realize that the atonement of Christ was not the cause of God's love, but the result of that love. Jesus died because God loved the world. The channel had to be made whereby the love of God should be recognized by man, and flow into the sinner's heart in perfect harmony with truth and justice." {RH, September 2, 1890 par. 7} Amen! Jesus' death on the cross accomplished many wonderful and needful things, not the least of which was to demonstrate God's love and desire to save us at any cost.

None of the quotes you posted, though, debunk the penal substitution view of atonement.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 08/27/08 11:59 PM

Quote:

The post was addressed to you. At any rate, are you suggesting her view of the destruction of the wicked is different in DA as compared to EW? If so, please cite examples. Thank you.

You've quoted these from EW many times, so I have in mind the ones you regularly quote. The DA ones I've quoted many times, so you should know those well. I'll quote one of them here:

Quote:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 08/28/08 12:08 AM

Quote:

PP 325
Love no less than justice demanded that for this sin judgment should be inflicted. God is the guardian as well as the sovereign of His people. He cuts off those who are determined upon rebellion, that they may not lead others to ruin. {PP 325.2}

What does this have to do with penal atonement? Some comment as to why you think this has something to do with the topic your are using it for would be helpful.

I noticed a similar thing in a recent discussion regarding the first four commandments vs. the last six. You cited a whole bunch of quotes, but they weren't talking about what you were. This makes it hard to follow your thought.

Rather than a whole bunch of quotes not dealing with the subject just one, two or three which make the point you wish to make would be good. Or, if it's difficult to see what the point is, if you made it clear, that would be appreciated.

Quote:

PP 492
Like the men before the Flood, the Canaanites lived only to blaspheme Heaven and defile the earth. And both love and justice demanded the prompt execution of these rebels against God and foes to man. {PP 492.2}

Here's another one. What does this have to do with what you wrote? You wrote this:

Quote:

What does the PP 492 quote have to do with Jesus' "penal, substitutionary death"?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 08/29/08 05:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

"God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice."

When do they receive these "results"? And what "results" is she referring to? And, how does this view of God differ from the view Jesus revealed to her earlier on in her ministry?

Originally Posted By: Tom

"Love no less than justice demanded that for this sin judgment should be inflicted. God is the guardian as well as the sovereign of His people. He cuts off those who are determined upon rebellion, that they may not lead others to ruin. {PP 325.2}

"Like the men before the Flood, the Canaanites lived only to blaspheme Heaven and defile the earth. And both love and justice demanded the prompt execution of these rebels against God and foes to man. {PP 492.2}

What does the PP 325 and 492 quote have to do with Jesus' "penal, substitutionary death"?

It speaks about "justice" demanding the execution of judgment. One of the many reasons Jesus had to live and die the perfect life and death was to satisfy the demands of law and justice, which is, of course, in harmony with love. All throughout the history of the GC thus far, law and justice have required God to execution the death penalty. God always acts in harmony with the loving principles of law and justice.

AG 139
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}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 08/29/08 08:05 PM

Quote:

When do they receive these "results"?

At the judgment.

Quote:

And what "results" is she referring to?

Death.

Quote:

And, how does this view of God differ from the view Jesus revealed to her earlier on in her ministry?

Why do you think it differs?

Quote:

The vast majority of the time, evil is not speedily visited by justice. You say this happens, "All throughout the history of the GC thus far, law and justice have required God to execution the death penalty." yet of the billions of sinful acts which have occurred throughout human history, what you are suggesting has occurred refers to a handful of incidents. So how is this evidence for your point of view?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/01/08 04:46 AM

Thank you for answering the first two questions. I agree unsaved sinners receive the "results" at judgments. But I do not agree death is the only result. The Bible and the SOP make it clear the "results" include the punishment of suffering before they die. Not even you believe they die instantly.

Quote:

MM: And, how does this view of God differ from the view Jesus revealed to her earlier on in her ministry?

TE: Why do you think it differs?

That's how this recent volley of posts got started. I asked Scott for evidence that Sister White's view of God became less harsh over time. You seem to agree with him. But so far neither one of you have posted the quotes to establish your assertions.

Quote:

TE: The vast majority of the time, evil is not speedily visited by justice.

True. But law and justice allow for this because Jesus has already paid the sin debt of death. Law and justice have already been satisfied. The unfolding of the GC under the plan of salvation creates a first death scenario not originally envisioned by law and justice.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/01/08 05:09 AM

Quote:

The suffering is the result of the judgment.

Quote:

MM: And, how does this view of God differ from the view Jesus revealed to her earlier on in her ministry?

TE: Why do you think it differs?

That's how this recent volley of posts got started. I asked Scott for evidence that Sister White's view of God became less harsh over time. You seem to agree with him. But so far neither one of you have posted the quotes to establish your assertions.

Why do you think what Jesus reveled to her differed as opposed to her understanding of what was revealed? If you just look at what she wrote, it's easy to see that what she wrote was different. Just look at DA 764, or DA 108 and compare that with the EW passages that you've quoted. I've asked you many, many times to reconcile these, and you never have even attempted to do so.

I believe in the EW passages she wrote down what she saw, and in other passages, including the DA ones I cited and GC 541-543, another one which comes to mind, she explains what she understands these visions to mean.

I didn't understand your law and justice comment.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/03/08 06:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

The suffering is the result of the judgment.

In judgment they are allowed to feel the full force of their sins. This is what causes them to suffer. True, they also suffer because in judgment they were found guilty and undeserving of eternal life in Paradise. Missing out on eternal life in Paradise is a bummer, but the lion's share of the suffering they experience comes from feeling the undiluted combined force of their sins.

Originally Posted By: Tom

I believe what Jesus revealed to her early on in her ministry and what He revealed to her later on in her ministry describe different ways and means God has employed, and will yet employ, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. That's how I reconcile the different things Jesus has revealed to her.

Originally Posted By: Tom

I believe in the EW passages she wrote down what she saw, and in other passages, including the DA ones I cited and GC 541-543, another one which comes to mind, she explains what she understands these visions to mean.

That's fine for you to say, but it's too bad for you she didn't say it herself - not once. How do you reconcile this fact?

Originally Posted By: Tom

TE: The vast majority of the time, evil is not speedily visited by justice.

MM: True. But law and justice allow for this because Jesus has already paid the sin debt of death. Law and justice have already been satisfied. The unfolding of the GC under the plan of salvation creates a first death scenario not originally envisioned by law and justice.

TE: I didn't understand your law and justice comment.

The reason sinners do not experience the natural, undiluted, unprotected consequences of sinning, the moment they sin, is due to the fact God intervenes and prevents it. Had God not implemented the plan of salvation, sinners would have died on the same day they sinned. The human race would have ended with the death of the A&E.

When God implemented the plan of salvation it protected A&E and their descendants from dying on the same day they sin. One of the many byproducts of implementing the plan of salvation is a first death scenario. The long, lingering first death sinners experience is not the natural, inevitable consequences of sinning. It is one of the fruits of the plan of salvation.

Law and justice requires God to punish and destroy sinners on the same day they sin. Jesus satisfied this just and loving requirement by becoming our substitute, by becoming the Lamb slain from the foundation of world. In this way God earned the legal right to grant sinners probation, and to offer them pardon and eternal life.

As the GC plays out, law and justice can, under the first death scenario, allow God to prevent or protect sinners from speedily experiencing justice for their sins. The reason law and justice can allow God to manage the consequences of sinner's choices in this way is because Jesus has already paid the actual price for their sins, namely, the second death.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/03/08 07:13 PM

Quote:

(T)The suffering is the result of the judgment.

(M)In judgment they are allowed to feel the full force of their sins. This is what causes them to suffer.

Agreed.

Quote:

(M)True, they also suffer because in judgment they were found guilty and undeserving of eternal life in Paradise. Missing out on eternal life in Paradise is a bummer, but the lion's share of the suffering they experience comes from feeling the undiluted combined force of their sins.

It would be hard to know how to apportion this, but I agree that their suffering is caused by the revelation of truth in regards to their sins, their destiny, and their character.

Quote:

There's no evidence to suggest that Jesus revealed something different to her. Indeed, the evidence is that she wrote these different books using the same source of revelation. She simply interpreted what she had been revealed to different degrees. In the Desire of Ages she explained the meaning in greater detail of what she had been shown earlier.

Quote:

That's fine for you to say, but it's too bad for you she didn't say it herself - not once. How do you reconcile this fact?

There's nothing to "reconcile." The evidence suggests the source of revelation for the different books was the same. There's no evidence her writings in these different books were inspired by a completely fresh set of visions. If you wish to assert this, the onus is on *you* to provide the evidence that she was revealed different things. I can just as easily say, "That's fine for you to say, but it's too bad for you she didn't say it herself - not once. How do you reconcile this fact?"

Quote:

Law and justice requires God to punish and destroy sinners on the same day they sin.

Satan isn't dead.

Quote:

Jesus satisfied this just and loving requirement by becoming our substitute, by becoming the Lamb slain from the foundation of world. In this way God earned the legal right to grant sinners probation, and to offer them pardon and eternal life.

Satan isn't dead. If what you were saying were true, wouldn't Satan be dead? Unless Jesus died for him?

Quote:

As the GC plays out, law and justice can, under the first death scenario, allow God to prevent or protect sinners from speedily experiencing justice for their sins. The reason law and justice can allow God to manage the consequences of sinner's choices in this way is because Jesus has already paid the actual price for their sins, namely, the second death.

How does it allow Satan to live?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/06/08 05:58 PM

TE: I agree that their suffering is caused by the revelation of truth in regards to their sins, their destiny, and their character.

MM: I'm glad we agree. Of course, I realize we disagree as to what else contributes to their suffering, namely, the flames all around them.

...

TE: The evidence suggests the source of revelation for the different books was the same.

MM: I agree the source was the same, namely, the Holy Spirit. But the fact she describes vastly different scenarios makes it clear to me God has employed different ways, means, and methods to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. For example, God allowed Satan to employ Roman soldiers to punish and destroy Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD. In the OT, however, God commanded holy angels to punish and destroy the Assyrian army. Listen:

Quote:

We are informed in Scripture as to the number, and the power and glory, of the heavenly beings, of their connection with the government of God, and also of their relation to the work of redemption. "The Lord hath prepared His throne in the heavens; and His kingdom ruleth over all." And, says the prophet, "I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne." In the presence chamber of the King of kings they wait--"angels, that excel in strength," "ministers of His, that do His pleasure," "hearkening unto the voice of His word." Psalm 103:19-21; Revelation 5:11. Ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, were the heavenly messengers beheld by the prophet Daniel. The apostle Paul declared them "an innumerable company." Daniel 7:10; Hebrews 12:22. As God's messengers they go forth, like "the appearance of a flash of lightning," (Ezekiel 1:14), so dazzling their glory, and so swift their flight. The angel that appeared at the Saviour's tomb, his countenance "like lightning, and his raiment white as snow," caused the keepers for fear of him to quake, and they "became as dead men." Matthew 28:3, 4. When Sennacherib, the haughty Assyrian, reproached and blasphemed God, and threatened Israel with destruction, "it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand." There were "cut off all the mighty men of valor, and the leaders and captains," from the army of Sennacherib. "So he returned with shame of face to his own land." 2 Kings 19:35; 2 Chronicles 32:21. {GC 511.3}

TE: Satan isn't dead. If what you were saying were true, wouldn't Satan be dead? Unless Jesus died for him?

MM: Satan is as good as dead. He's on death row. "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Jude 1:6.

Law and justice requires of God to execute law and justice, which includes, in the case of fallen angels, a fair trial and hearing. The jury is still out in the case of evil angels. When a guilty verdict is decided they will be punished and destroyed.

In the case of A&E, their guilt and verdict was clear from the instance they sinned. A long drawn out trial was not necessary or appropriate. If Jesus had not stepped in immediately to atone for their sin law and justice would have demanded their instant execution.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/06/08 08:44 PM

Quote:

I don't understand how you can perceive of God as being like this. That is, that God would torture people with fire to make them pay for their sins. I don't get it.

Regarding EGW's descriptions of the destruction of the wicked, by "source" I was referring to the vision she described. You seem to be thinking there was one vision for the DA description and a different one for the others. However, the evidence is that they were different descriptions of the same vision.

John, in Revelation, described what he saw. Ellen White did similarly in Early Writings. In DA 764 she explains the meaning of what she saw.

Quote:

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/08/08 06:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

I don't understand how you can perceive of God as being like this. That is, that God would torture people with fire to make them pay for their sins. I don't get it.

What you call "torture" God calls "punishment". Says God, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay." Listen:

At the general conference of believers in the present truth, held at Sutton, Vermont, September, 1850, I was shown that the seven last plagues will be poured out after Jesus leaves the sanctuary. Said the angel, "It is the wrath of God and the Lamb that causes the destruction or death of the wicked. At the voice of God the saints will be mighty and terrible as an army with banners, but they will not then execute the judgment written. The execution of the judgment will be at the close of the one thousand years." {EW 52.1}

Then the wicked saw what they had lost; and fire was breathed from God upon them and consumed them. This was the execution of the judgment. The wicked then received according as the saints, in unison with Jesus, had meted out to them during the one thousand years. The same fire from God that consumed the wicked purified the whole earth. The broken, ragged mountains melted with fervent heat, the atmosphere also, and all the stubble was consumed. Then our inheritance opened before us, glorious and beautiful, and we inherited the whole earth made new. We all shouted with a loud voice, "Glory; Alleluia!" {EW 54.1}

Jesus and the angels look 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, I will repay, saith the Lord." The fearful threatenings of the third angel are to be realized, and all the wicked are to drink of the wrath of God. {EW 274.1}

Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. {EW 294.1}

I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. {EW 294.1}

Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, "Amen!" {EW 294.2}

Said the angel, "Satan is the root, his children are the branches. They are now consumed root and branch. They have died an everlasting death. They are never to have a resurrection, and God will have a clean universe." I then looked and saw the fire which had consumed the wicked, burning up the rubbish and purifying the earth. {EW 295.1}

In mercy to the world, God blotted out its wicked inhabitants in Noah's time. In mercy He destroyed the corrupt dwellers in Sodom. Through the deceptive power of Satan the workers of iniquity obtain sympathy and admiration, and are thus constantly leading others to rebellion. It was so in Cain's and in Noah's day, and in the time of Abraham and Lot; it is so in our time. It is in mercy to the universe that God will finally destroy the rejecters of His grace. {GC 543.3}

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 544.2}

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. 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}

The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. "Upon the wicked he shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone, and a horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup." 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. The wicked "shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts." All are punished "according to their deeds" (SW March 14, 1905). {3BC 1142.8}

The Saviour does not point forward to a time when all the tares become wheat. The wheat and tares grow together until the harvest, the end of the world. Then the tares are bound in bundles to be burned, and the wheat is gathered into the garner of God. "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." Then "the Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." {COL 75.1}

God permits the wicked to prosper and to reveal their enmity against Him, that when they shall have filled up the measure of their iniquity all may see His justice and mercy in their utter destruction. The day of His vengeance hastens, when all who have transgressed His law and oppressed His people will meet the just recompense of their deeds; when every act of cruelty or injustice toward God's faithful ones will be punished as though done to Christ Himself. {GC 48.2}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/08/08 07:03 PM

Quote:

T:I don't understand how you can perceive of God as being like this. That is, that God would torture people with fire to make them pay for their sins. I don't get it.

M:What you call "torture" God calls "punishment".

What you call "punishment" would be torture.

I don't see how anyone can look at Jesus Christ, consider His life and teachings, hear Him say, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and think that God will engulf people with flames, and keep them alive so they will suffer excruciating pain in order to pay for their sins.

Consider DA 764:

Quote:

This points out that the glory of "Him who is Love" will destroy the wicked..

Quote:

Now the prince of darkness, working through his agents, represents God as a revengeful tyrant, declaring that He plunges into hell all those who do not please Him, and causes them ever to feel His wrath; and that while they suffer unutterable anguish and writhe in the eternal flames, their Creator looks down upon them with satisfaction.(GC 534)

This looks like the idea you are presenting. Continuing

Quote:

Thus the archfiend clothes with his own attributes the Creator and Benefactor of mankind. Cruelty is satanic.How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone ...

The idea that God will torture the wicked is indeed "repugnant." And cruelty is Satanic, whether if for all eternity, or for "many hours" or "many days."

God has completely revealed Himself in Christ. Anyone who looks at Christ honestly and should see Someone incapable of torturing those who choose not do agree with Him.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/10/08 08:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

What you call "punishment" would be torture.

Said the angel, "It is the wrath of God and the Lamb that causes the destruction or death of the wicked." Jesus said, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment." Matthew 25:46. Listen to other testimonies:

Lamentations
3:31 For the Lord will not cast off for ever:
3:32 But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies.
3:33 For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.
3:34 To crush under his feet all the prisoners of the earth,
3:35 To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the most High,
3:36 To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not.
3:37 Who [is] he [that] saith, and it cometh to pass, [when] the Lord commandeth [it] not?
3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
3:39 Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?
3:40 Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the LORD.
3:41 Let us lift up our heart with [our] hands unto God in the heavens.
3:42 We have transgressed and have rebelled: thou hast not pardoned.
3:43 Thou hast covered with anger, and persecuted us: thou hast slain, thou hast not pitied.
3:44 Thou hast covered thyself with a cloud, that [our] prayer should not pass through.
3:45 Thou hast made us [as] the offscouring and refuse in the midst of the people.
3:46 All our enemies have opened their mouths against us.
3:47 Fear and a snare is come upon us, desolation and destruction.

Here's Matthew Henry's comments on Lamentation:

Quote:

I. We must see and acknowledge the hand of God in all the calamities that befal us at any time, whether personal or public, Lam_3:37, Lam_3:38. This is here laid down as a great truth, which will help to quiet our spirits under our afflictions and to sanctify them to us.

1. That, whatever men's actions are, it is God that overrules them: Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass (that designs a thing and bring his designs to effect), if the Lord commandeth it not? Men can do nothing but according to the counsel of God, nor have any power or success but what is given them from above. A man's heart devises his way; he projects and purposes; he says that he will do so and so (Jam_4:13); but the Lord directs his steps far otherwise than he designed them, and what he contrived and expected does not come to pass, unless it be what God's hand and his counsel had determined before to be done, Pro_16:9; Jer_10:23. The Chaldeans said that they would destroy Jerusalem, and it came to pass, not because they said it, but because God commanded it and commissioned them to do it. Note, Men are but tools which the great God makes use of, and manages as he pleases, in the government of this lower world; and they cannot accomplish any of their designs without him.

2. That, whatever men's lot is, it is God that orders it: Out of the mouth of the Most High do not evil and good proceed? Yes, certainly they do; and it is more emphatically expressed in the original: Do not this evil, and this good, proceed out of the mouth of the Most High? Is it not what he has ordained and appointed for us? Yes, certainly it is; and for the reconciling of us to our own afflictions, whatever they be, this general truth must thus be particularly applied. This comfort I receive from the hand of God, and shall I not receive that evil also? so Job argues, Lam_2:10. Are we healthful or sickly, rich or poor? Do we succeed in our designs, or are we crossed in them? It is all what God orders; every man's judgment proceeds from him. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; he forms the light and creates the darkness, as he did at first.

Note, All the events of divine Providence are the products of a divine counsel; whatever is done God has the directing of it, and the works of his hands agree with the words of his mouth; he speaks, and it is done, so easily, so effectually are all his purposes fulfilled.

II. We must not quarrel with God for any affliction that he lays upon us at any time (Lam_3:39): Wherefore does a living man complain? The prophet here seems to check himself for the complaint he had made in the former part of the chapter, wherein he seemed to reflect upon God as unkind and severe. “Do I well to be angry? Why do I fret thus?” Those who in their haste have chidden with God must, in the reflection, chide themselves for it. From the doctrine of God's sovereign and universal providence, which he had asserted in the verses before, he draws this inference, Wherefore does a living man complain? What God does we must not open our mouths against, Psa_39:9. Those that blame their lot reproach him that allotted it to them. The sufferers in the captivity must submit to the will of God in all their sufferings. Note, Though we may pour out our complaints before God, we must never exhibit any complaints against God. What! Shall a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins? The reasons here urged are very cogent.

1. We are men; let us herein show ourselves men. Shall a man complain? And again, a man! We are men, and not brutes, reasonable creatures, who should act with reason, who should look upward and look forward, and both ways may fetch considerations enough to silence our complaints. We are men, and not children that cry for every thing that hurts them. We are men, and not gods, subjects, not lords; we are not our own masters, not our own carvers; we are bound and must obey, must submit. We are men, and not angels, and therefore cannot expect to be free from troubles as they are; we are not inhabitants of that world where there is no sorrow, but this where there is nothing but sorrow. We are men, and not devils, are not in that deplorable, helpless, hopeless, state that they are in, but have something to comfort ourselves with which they have not.

2. We are living men. Through the good hand of our God upon us we are alive yet, though dying daily; and shall a living man complain? No; he has more reason to be thankful for life than to complain of any of the burdens and calamities of life. Our lives are frail and forfeited, and yet we are alive; now the living, the living, they should praise, and not complain (Isa_38:19); while there is life there is hope, and therefore, instead of complaining that things are bad, we should encourage ourselves with the hope that they will be better.

3. We are sinful men, and that which we complain of is the just punishment of our sins; nay, it is far less than our iniquities have deserved. We have little reason to complain of our trouble, for it is our own doing; we may thank ourselves. Our own wickedness corrects us, Pro_19:3. We have no reason to quarrel with God, for he is righteous in it; he is the governor of the world, and it is necessary that he should maintain the honour of his government by chastising the disobedient. Are we suffering for our sins? Then let us not complain; for we have other work to do; instead of repining, we must be repenting; and, as an evidence that God is reconciled to us, we must be endeavouring to reconcile ourselves to his holy will. Are we punished for our sins? It is our wisdom then to submit, and to kiss the rod; for, if we still walk contrary to God, he will punish us yet seven times more; for when he judges he will overcome. But, if we accommodate ourselves to him, though we be chastened of the Lord we shall not be condemned with the world.

III. We must set ourselves to answer God's intention in afflicting us, which is to bring sin to our remembrance, and to bring us home to himself, Lam_3:40. These are the two things which our afflictions should put us upon.

1. A serious consideration of ourselves and a reflection upon our past lives. Let us search and try our ways, search what they have been, and then try whether they have been right and good or no; search as for a malefactor in disguise, that flees and hides himself, and then try whether guilty or not guilty. Let conscience be employed both to search and to try, and let it have leave to deal faithfully, to accomplish a diligent search and to make an impartial trial. Let us try our ways, that by them we may try ourselves, for we are to judge of our state not by our faint wishes, but by our steps, not by one particular step, but by our ways, the ends we aim at, the rules we go by, and the agreeableness of the temper of our minds and the tenour of our lives to those ends and those rules. When we are in affliction it is seasonable to consider our ways (Hag_1:5), that what is amiss may be repented of and amended for the future, and so we may answer the intention of the affliction. We are apt, in times of public calamity, to reflect upon other people's ways, and lay blame upon them; whereas our business is to search and try our own ways. We have work enough to do at home; we must each of us say, “What have I done? What have I contributed to the public flames?” that we may each of us mend one, and then we should all be mended.

2. A sincere conversion to God: “Let us turn again to the Lord, to him who is turned against us and whom we have turned from; to him let us turn by repentance and reformation, as to our owner and ruler. We have been with him, and it has never been well with us since we forsook him; let us therefore now turn again to him.” This must accompany the former and be the fruit of it; therefore we must search and try our ways, that we may turn from the evil of them to God. This was the method David took. Psa_119:59, I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies.

IV. We must offer up ourselves to God, and our best affections and services, in the flames of devotion, Lam_3:41. When we are in affliction,

1. We must look up to God as a God in the heavens, infinitely above us, and who has an incontestable dominion over us; for the heavens do rule, and are therefore not to be quarrelled with, but submitted to.

2. We must pray to him, with a believing expectation to receive mercy from him; for that is implied in our lifting up our hands to him (a gesture commonly used in prayer and sometimes put for it, as Psa_141:2, Let the lifting up of my hands be as the evening sacrifice); it signifies our requesting mercy from him and our readiness to receive that mercy.

(3.) Our hearts must go along with our prayers. We must lift up our hearts with our hands, as we must pour out our souls with our words. it is the heart that God looks at in that and every other service; for what will a sacrifice without a heart avail? If inward impressions be not in some measure answerable to outward expressions, we do but mock God and deceive ourselves. Praying is lifting up the soul to God (Psa_25:1) as to our Father in heaven; and the soul that hopes to be with God in heaven for ever will thus, by frequent acts of devotion, be still learning the way thither and pressing forward in that way.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Originally Posted By: Tom

This points out that the glory of "Him who is Love" will destroy the wicked.

True, but it is clear from other passages that fire rained down from above and fire raised up from below are also employed by God in the punishment and destruction of the wicked. The holy angels do not perceive such things as torture as can be seen in the following passages:

Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

Revelation
18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/10/08 11:58 PM

Quote:

Said the angel, "It is the wrath of God and the Lamb that causes the destruction or death of the wicked." Jesus said, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment."

This is just another way of saying this:

Quote:

By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.(DA 764)

Exactly the same thing is being described.

It's very interesting that you would cite Matthew Henry's Commentary! Matthew Henry is a 5 point Calvinist. If you're not familiar with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

SDAism is not Calvinistic. I'm not surprised you would cite Henry, however, as your outlook has always struck me as Calvinistic.

Quote:

From this we can conclude that the fire is not literal, given that angels are not sadists. To be clear, I'm speaking to the idea that fire comes down from heaven, engulfs the wicked, and they remain alive for days, suffering excruciating pain, while this suffering pays for their sins. It's hard to conceive of an idea more cruel than this.

Have you ever been burned by fire? It hurts, right? Not much hurts more than a burn. Imagine being burned over your whole body for days on end. You think doing this to someone represents divine justice?

The following comes to mind:

Quote:

What would be gained to God should we admit that He delights in witnessing unceasing tortures; that He is regaled with the groans and shrieks and imprecations of the suffering creatures whom He holds in the flames of hell? Can these horrid sounds be music in the ear of Infinite Love? It is urged that the infliction of endless misery upon the wicked would show God's hatred of sin as an evil which is ruinous to the peace and order of the universe. Oh, dreadful blasphemy! As if God's hatred of sin is the reason why it is perpetuated. For, according to the teachings of these theologians, continued torture without hope of mercy maddens its wretched victims, and as they pour out their rage in curses and blasphemy, they are forever augmenting their load of guilt. God's glory is not enhanced by thus perpetuating continually increasing sin through ceaseless ages.(GC 536)

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/12/08 09:24 PM

Tom, you seem to be convinced that God will not employ literal fire to punish resurrected sinners. You seem content to symbolically interpret all the passages which describe God using fire to punish sinners. Your view would be more compelling if the Bible or the SOP backed up your interpretation. Instead, they do the opposite. Listen:

Genesis
19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

Luke
17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all.
17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

2 Peter
2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

Jude
1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Please note that the Bible does not teach that the fire at the end of time is symbolic. Instead, the Bible makes it clear that the fire is just as literal as the fire that God rained down upon Sodom. No attempt is made to say the two fires are different, that one was literal and the other is symbolic.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/13/08 04:42 AM

Quote:

The point of view that you hold that I've been taking issue with is that God would use literal fire to engulf them in flames, and keep them alive for days or hours, in order to make them pay for their sins. Of course no text you cited supports this.

Regarding the point of view that I have been espousing, that God would not do such a thing, the whole of the Bible and the SOP teach this, as God is love. Here's one passage that brings this out:

Quote:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.(1 Cor. 13:4-7)

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/13/08 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Why do you think He will use literal fire at the end of time if not to punish them?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/14/08 06:49 AM

Re: The Covenants - 09/15/08 08:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Here's she wrote about fire and punishment:

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. {LDE 241.2}

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}

We have reached a time when God is about to punish the presumptuous wrongdoers, who refuse to keep His commandments and disregard His messages of warning. He who bears long with evildoers gives everyone an opportunity to seek Him and humble their hearts before Him. {TDG 152.1}

"We ourselves," he wrote, "glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: . . . and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power. . . . Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all the good pleasure of His goodness, and the work of faith with power: that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." {AA 264.3}

I saw that the angels of God are never to control the will. God sets before man life and death. He can have his choice. Many desire life, but still continue to walk in the broad road. They choose to rebel against God's government, notwithstanding His great mercy and compassion in giving His Son to die for them. Those who do not choose to accept of the salvation so dearly purchased, must be punished. But I saw that God would not shut them up in hell to endure endless misery, neither will He take them to heaven; for to bring them into the company of the pure and holy would make them exceedingly miserable. But He will destroy them utterly and cause them to be as if they had not been; then His justice will be satisfied. He formed man out of the dust of the earth, and the disobedient and unholy will be consumed by fire and return to dust again. I saw that the benevolence and compassion of God in this matter should lead all to admire His character and to adore His holy name. After the wicked are destroyed from off the earth, all the heavenly host will say, "Amen!" {EW 221.1}

With an intense interest God's movements were watched by the heavenly angels. Would He come forth from His place to punish the inhabitants of the world for their iniquity? Would He send fire or flood to destroy them? All heaven waited the bidding of their Commander to pour out the vials of wrath upon a rebellious world. One word from Him, one sign, and the world would have been destroyed. The worlds unfallen would have said, "Amen. Thou art righteous, O God, because Thou hast exterminated rebellion." {RC 58.4}

Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, "Amen!" {EW 294.2}

The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. "Upon the wicked he shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone, and a horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup." 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. The wicked "shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts." All are punished "according to their deeds" (SW March 14, 1905). {3BC 1142.8}

Their murmuring was now rebellion, and as such it must receive prompt and signal punishment, if Israel was to be preserved from anarchy and ruin. "The fire of Jehovah burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp." The most guilty of the complainers were slain by lightning from the cloud. {PP 379.1}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/15/08 08:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Since the same thing that slays the wicked gives life to the righteous, it cannot be literal fire.

Tom, please show me in the following passage which fire is literal and which fire is symbolic. I cannot see where she makes a difference.

Saith the Lord: "Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit." "I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. . . . I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Ezekiel 28:6-8, 16-19. {GC 672.1}

"Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." "The indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: He hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter." "Upon the wicked He shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup." Isaiah 9:5; 34:2; Psalm 11:6, margin. 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. 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}

Satan's work of ruin is forever ended. For six thousand years he has wrought his will, filling the earth with woe and causing grief throughout the universe. The whole creation has groaned and travailed together in pain. Now God's creatures are forever delivered from his presence and temptations. "The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they [the righteous] break forth into singing." Isaiah 14:7. And a shout of praise and triumph ascends from the whole loyal universe. "The voice of a great multitude," "as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings," is heard, saying: "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." Revelation 19:6. {GC 673.2}

While the earth was wrapped in the fire of destruction, the righteous abode safely in the Holy City. Upon those that had part in the first resurrection, the second death has no power. While God is to the wicked a consuming fire, He is to His people both a sun and a shield. Revelation 20:6; Psalm 84:11. {GC 673.3}

"I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." Revelation 21:1. The fire that consumes the wicked purifies the earth. Every trace of the curse is swept away. No eternally burning hell will keep before the ransomed the fearful consequences of sin. {GC 674.1}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/15/08 11:59 PM

I think the easiest way to go about this is the other way around.

Quote:

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. 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....

The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. (DA 107, 108)

Quote:

My! I've probably quoted this 100 times:

Quote:

Also this:

Quote:

The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. (DA 108)

This, as I've often pointed out, makes it clear that the wicked are not killed by literal fire as the same thing which kills the wicked gives life to the righteous. Literal fire does not give life to the righteous.

But the main point is that God's character simply doesn't allow Him to torture people. Ellen White uses the word "torture" here:

Quote:

I've asked you what the difference of your view is to this, excluding the duration, and you haven't pointed out anything yet. In fact, the last part of the last sentence is almost word for word what you've quoted in the past

Quote:

who, instead of taking the part of these miserable objects, will say, Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!

You've expressed this sentiment many times that while the wicked are burning, the righteous will rejoice. Yet what comes next?

Quote:

Where, in the pages of God's word, is such teaching to be found? Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage? No, no; such is not the teaching of the Book of God. Those who present the views expressed in the quotations given above may be learned and even honest men, but they are deluded by the sophistry of Satan. He leads them to misconstrue strong expressions of Scripture, giving to the language the coloring of bitterness and malignity which pertains to himself, but not to our Creator. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?" Ezekiel 33:11.

Quote:

The idea that God is too loving to use literal fire to cause sinners to die denies the history of God's handling of sinners. On several occasions He used literal fire to punish and kill sinners. Do you agree? If so, then why do you find it so appalling that He will do it again at the end of time?

Even if the deaths of the wicked in Sodom and Gomorrah and other incidents of Scripture were exactly as you understand things, this would still be night and day different than what you are suggesting takes place in the judgment. In Sodom and Gomorrah God did not keep the wicked alive for hours or days so they could burn. Human beings die within seconds when engulfed by flames.

Quote:

What does it matter to you if God burns them alive in fire and they die right away or if they suffer longer before they die?

It's hard to believe someone can ask this. You don't see the difference in suffering pain for a few seconds due to the natural result of being burned by fire and being burned alive for days? In the first case, it's not something God is doing to them, and the duration is very brief. In the second God is doing it to them, and the duration is a long time.

Just imagine people shrieking in pain, writhing in agony. I ask, along with Ellen White: What would be gained to God should we admit that He delights in witnessing this torture; that He is regaled with the groans and shrieks and imprecations of the suffering creatures whom He holds in the flames of hell? Can these horrid sounds be music in the ear of Infinite Love? It is urged that the infliction of endless misery upon the wicked would show God's hatred of sin as an evil which is ruinous to the peace and order of the universe. Oh, dreadful blasphemy!

Quote:

There is no legitimate reason to think her description isn't literal.

Sure there are. I've pointed them out many times. One is that it disagrees with other passages she's written on the subject, which I've quoted. You don't account for these other passages. Secondly, and most importantly, such an interpretation is impossible given God's character revealed by Jesus Christ. I'm dumbfounded that you don't see this. Where in Christ's life or teachings do see a Being who would burn people alive for days? Who did Christ ever treat like this? Satan, yes, we see him treating Christ like this, but Christ, no. Even when Christ was being tortured He prayed for those torturing Him, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/22/08 08:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

The same consuming fire that destroys the wicked burns up the rubble and rubbish of earth. Obviously, then, the consuming fire of God's radiant glory literally causes material things to burn up. The reason it doesn't burn up the righteous, who are abiding safely within the walls of the New Jerusalem, is for the same reason it has never burned up holy, sinless beings.

One reason sinful flesh and sinless flesh react differently when exposed to the radiant glory of God is because they are made of different material. Sinful flesh naturally bursts into flames when exposed to the radiant glory of God. That's why Jesus had to clothe His divinity with humanity. That's why God said, "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." (1 Cor 15:53) Not even Jesus, while inhabiting sinful flesh, could appear in the unveiled presence of God's radiant glory.

Originally Posted By: Tom

You've expressed this sentiment many times that while the wicked are burning, the righteous will rejoice.

There is nothing wicked about God punishing the wicked in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. There is nothing evil, bad, or wrong about it. It is merciful and righteous. God can punish people with fire without it being considered torture because it is consistent with the principles mercy and justice. Listen:

"The reconciliation of mercy and justice did not involve any compromise with sin, or ignore any claim of justice; but by giving to each divine attribute its ordained place, mercy could be exercised in the punishment of sinful, impenitent man without destroying its clemency or forfeiting its compassionate character, and justice could be exercised in forgiving the repenting transgressor without violating its integrity. {1SM 260.2}

Is it appropriate for sinless beings to laugh and rejoice when God executes justice and judgment? Yes, of course. Listen:

Psalm
2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
2:5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

Psalm 37:12 The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.
37:13 The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.

Psalm
52:5 God shall likewise destroy thee for ever, he shall take thee away, and pluck thee out of [thy] dwelling place, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah.
52:6 The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him:
52:7 Lo, [this is] the man [that] made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, [and] strengthened himself in his wickedness.

Proverbs
1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
1:25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
1:27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.

Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.

Revelation
18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her.
18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:

Originally Posted By: Tom

In Sodom and Gomorrah God did not keep the wicked alive for hours or days so they could burn. Human beings die within seconds when engulfed by flames.

The point is God burned them alive. Do you agree? God has, and will, used literal fire to burn people alive. For example:

Genesis
19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

Exodus
9:23 And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the LORD rained hail upon the land of Egypt.
9:24 So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous, such as there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation.
9:25 And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that [was] in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field.

Leviticus
10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Numbers
11:1 And [when] the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard [it]; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed [them that were] in the uttermost parts of the camp.
11:2 And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched.
11:3 And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the LORD burnt among them.

Numbers
16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.
26:10 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men: and they became a sign.

Deuteronomy
9:3 Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God [is] he which goeth over before thee; [as] a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee.

Psalm
50:3 Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.
83:14 As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire;
83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.
97:3 A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about.
106:17 The earth opened and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the company of Abiram.
106:18 And a fire was kindled in their company; the flame burned up the wicked.
140:10 Let burning coals fall upon them: let them be cast into the fire; into deep pits, that they rise not up again.

Matthew
13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mark
9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Luke
17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all.
17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

John
15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.

2 Thessalonians
1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Jude
1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Revelation
14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation
16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
16:9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

Revelation
20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/22/08 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

MM: There is no legitimate reason to think her description isn't literal.

TE: Sure there are. I've pointed them out many times. One is that it disagrees with other passages she's written on the subject, which I've quoted. You don't account for these other passages.

I have repeatedly explained how I reconcile those other passages. Yes, the wicked will suffer emotional agony during judgment. It is akin to fire. But they get over it and rally together to take New Jerusalem by force. Thus, it is obvious that the agony they experience during judgment does not cause them to die. It is not until God rains down fire from above and raises fire up from below that the wicked suffer in the fires and flames.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/22/08 09:25 PM

Quote:

The same consuming fire that destroys the wicked burns up the rubble and rubbish of earth. Obviously, then, the consuming fire of God's radiant glory literally causes material things to burn up.

This doesn't make any sense. There's no reason why the fact that the same fire that burns up the wicked burns up the rubble and rubbish of the earth should mean this fire must be the fire of God's radiant glory, must less that this should be obvious.

Quote:

One reason sinful flesh and sinless flesh react differently when exposed to the radiant glory of God is because they are made of different material. Sinful flesh naturally bursts into flames when exposed to the radiant glory of God. That's why Jesus had to clothe His divinity with humanity. That's why God said, "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." (1 Cor 15:53)

The issue is a spiritual one, MM, not a physical one. If the wicked had bodies just like the righteous, they would still die. Satan and his angelic followers are not comprised of this "material" you are speaking of, yet they die in the same manner as the unrighteous humans. Why? Because their death is a spiritual death, with spiritual causes.

Quote:

Not even Jesus, while inhabiting sinful flesh, could appear in the unveiled presence of God's radiant glory.

You've often asserted this, but not provided any evidence for this. Do you know of any?

MM, regarding GC 536, it seems like you're simply agreeing with what I said, that your view is the same as that presented there. You are echoing this thought:

Quote:

(W)ho, instead of taking the part of these miserable objects, will say, Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!"

And her reply applies:

Quote:

The point is God burned them alive. Do you agree? God has, and will, used literal fire to burn people alive. For example:

No, that's not the point. Whoever died by fire in Sodom and Gomorrah died due to the causes of fire. They were not "burned alive" by God. "Burned alive" is like what those in Medieval times did in burning heretics to the stake. It has nothing to do with Sodom and Gomorrah.

None of the Scriptures you quote apply either, because none of them have God burning people alive, keeping them alive so that they can suffer more pain.

The problem here goes deeper than how to apply Scripture. It goes to the fundamental issue of what God is like. Is He capable of acting like a sadist? Will He torture people who choose not follow Him?

Another problem is the question of what kind of followers such pictures of God will produce.

Quote:

A sullen submission to the will of the Father will develop the character of a rebel. By such a one service is looked upon as drudgery. It is not rendered cheerfully, and in the love of God. It is a mere mechanical performance. If he dared, such a one would disobey. His rebellion is smothered, ready to break out at any time in bitter murmurings and complaints. Such service brings no peace or quietude to the soul." MS 20, 1897 (MR # 970)

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/22/08 09:31 PM

Quote:

Yes, the wicked will suffer emotional agony during judgment. It is akin to fire. But they get over it and rally together to take New Jerusalem by force.

You've got this backwards.

Quote:

At last the order to advance is given, and the countless host moves on--an army such as was never summoned by earthly conquerors, such as the combined forces of all ages since war began on earth could never equal. Satan, the mightiest of warriors, leads the van, and his angels unite their forces for this final struggle....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. They see just where their feet diverged from the path of purity and holiness, just how far pride and rebellion have carried them in the violation of the law of God. The seductive temptations which they encouraged by indulgence in sin, the blessings perverted, the messengers of God despised, the warnings rejected, the waves of mercy beaten back by the stubborn, unrepentant heart--all appear as if written in letters of fire.(GC 664,666)

They don't "get over it." They die. It is the light of the glory of God, given by the "revealer of God's character" that will "slay the wicked." This is after their attack on the city.

This same revelation of truth, by the "revealer of God's character," gives life to the righteous.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/23/08 05:56 PM

It looks like we are in disagreement, Tom.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/23/08 11:58 PM

Regarding the order? Why do you think it's the other way around? In what I quoted it says, "At last the order to advance is given, and the countless host moves on ..." and then, later on it says, "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."

So the advance upon the city comes first, then comes the judgment.

They don't get over the judgment.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/25/08 05:59 PM

Here is the chronology:

Every eye in that vast multitude is turned to behold the glory of the Son of God. With one voice the wicked hosts exclaim: "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!" {GC 662.2}

As the New Jerusalem, in its dazzling splendor, comes down out of heaven, it rests upon the place purified and made ready to receive it, and Christ, with His people and the angels, enters the Holy City. {GC 662.3}

Now Satan prepares for a last mighty struggle for the supremacy. . . He proposes to lead them [the resurrected sinners] against the camp of the saints and to take possession of the City of God. {GC 663.1}

At last the order to advance is given, and the countless host moves on. . . By command of Jesus, the gates of the New Jerusalem are closed, and the armies of Satan surround the city and make ready for the onset. {GC 664.3}

Now Christ again appears to the view of His enemies. . . The brightness of His presence fills the City of God, and flows out beyond the gates, flooding the whole earth with its radiance. {GC 665.1}

In the presence of the assembled inhabitants of earth and heaven the final coronation of the Son of God takes place. {GC 666.1}

And now, invested with supreme majesty and power, the King of kings pronounces sentence upon the rebels against His government and executes justice upon those who have transgressed His law and oppressed His people. {GC 666.1}

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}

They vainly seek to hide from the divine majesty of His countenance, outshining the glory of the sun, while the redeemed cast their crowns at the Saviour's feet, exclaiming: "He died for me!" {GC 667.2}

The whole wicked world stand arraigned at the bar of God on the charge of high treason against the government of heaven. They have none to plead their cause; they are without excuse; and the sentence of eternal death is pronounced against them. {GC 668.2}

As if entranced, the wicked have looked upon the coronation of the Son of God. {GC 668.4}

Satan seems paralyzed as he beholds the glory and majesty of Christ. {GC 669.1}

As Satan looks upon his kingdom, the fruit of his toil, he sees only failure and ruin. He has led the multitudes to believe that the City of God would be an easy prey; but he knows that this is false. {GC 669.2}

And now Satan bows down and confesses the justice of his sentence. {GC 670.2}

Notwithstanding that Satan has been constrained to acknowledge God's justice and to bow to the supremacy of Christ, his character remains unchanged. . . He rushes into the midst of his subjects and endeavors to inspire them with his own fury and arouse them to instant battle. . . but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah. {GC 671.2}

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. {GC 671.2}

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 earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire. {GC 672.2}

Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." {GC 673.1}

And a shout of praise and triumph ascends from the whole loyal universe. "The voice of a great multitude," "as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings," is heard, saying: "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." Revelation 19:6. {GC 673.2}

While the earth was wrapped in the fire of destruction, the righteous abode safely in the Holy City. Upon those that had part in the first resurrection, the second death has no power. While God is to the wicked a consuming fire, He is to His people both a sun and a shield. Revelation 20:6; Psalm 84:11. {GC 673.3}

"I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." Revelation 21:1. The fire that consumes the wicked purifies the earth. Every trace of the curse is swept away. No eternally burning hell will keep before the ransomed the fearful consequences of sin. {GC 674.1}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/25/08 10:53 PM

MM, you wrote:

Quote:

Yes, the wicked will suffer emotional agony during judgment. It is akin to fire. But they get over it and rally together to take New Jerusalem by force.

But first comes this:

Quote:

At last the order to advance is given, and the countless host moves on. . . By command of Jesus, the gates of the New Jerusalem are closed, and the armies of Satan surround the city and make ready for the onset. {GC 664.3}

which is the attack on the New Jerusalem. This comes before the judgment, which is here:

Quote:

Right?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 09/28/08 06:31 PM

Yeah, I got the order wrong. Sorry. Thanx for steering me right. However, what I was trying to point out is the fact judgment knowledge of their sinfulness is not what causes them to die. They are still very much alive by the time God rains down fire upon them. It is this fire, literal fire, that causes them to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness - not judgment knowledge of their loss and sinfulness. Neither are they destroyed when exposed to the radiant glory of Jesus.

Here's an enumerated chronology events (the same one posted above). See my summary afterward.

1. Every eye in that vast multitude is turned to behold the glory of the Son of God. With one voice the wicked hosts exclaim: "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!" {GC 662.2}

2. As the New Jerusalem, in its dazzling splendor, comes down out of heaven, it rests upon the place purified and made ready to receive it, and Christ, with His people and the angels, enters the Holy City. {GC 662.3}

3. Now Satan prepares for a last mighty struggle for the supremacy. . . He proposes to lead them [the resurrected sinners] against the camp of the saints and to take possession of the City of God. {GC 663.1}

4. At last the order to advance is given, and the countless host moves on. . . By command of Jesus, the gates of the New Jerusalem are closed, and the armies of Satan surround the city and make ready for the onset. {GC 664.3}

5. Now Christ again appears to the view of His enemies. . . The brightness of His presence fills the City of God, and flows out beyond the gates, flooding the whole earth with its radiance. {GC 665.1}

6. In the presence of the assembled inhabitants of earth and heaven the final coronation of the Son of God takes place. {GC 666.1}

7. And now, invested with supreme majesty and power, the King of kings pronounces sentence upon the rebels against His government and executes justice upon those who have transgressed His law and oppressed His people. {GC 666.1}

8. 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}

9. They vainly seek to hide from the divine majesty of His countenance, outshining the glory of the sun, while the redeemed cast their crowns at the Saviour's feet, exclaiming: "He died for me!" {GC 667.2}

10. The whole wicked world stand arraigned at the bar of God on the charge of high treason against the government of heaven. They have none to plead their cause; they are without excuse; and the sentence of eternal death is pronounced against them. {GC 668.2}

11. As if entranced, the wicked have looked upon the coronation of the Son of God. {GC 668.4}

12. Satan seems paralyzed as he beholds the glory and majesty of Christ. {GC 669.1}

13. As Satan looks upon his kingdom, the fruit of his toil, he sees only failure and ruin. He has led the multitudes to believe that the City of God would be an easy prey; but he knows that this is false. {GC 669.2}

14. And now Satan bows down and confesses the justice of his sentence. {GC 670.2}

15. Notwithstanding that Satan has been constrained to acknowledge God's justice and to bow to the supremacy of Christ, his character remains unchanged. . . He rushes into the midst of his subjects and endeavors to inspire them with his own fury and arouse them to instant battle. . . but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah. {GC 671.2}

16. 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. {GC 671.2}

17. 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 earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire. {GC 672.2}

18. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." {GC 673.1}

19. And a shout of praise and triumph ascends from the whole loyal universe. "The voice of a great multitude," "as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings," is heard, saying: "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." Revelation 19:6. {GC 673.2}

20. While the earth was wrapped in the fire of destruction, the righteous abode safely in the Holy City. Upon those that had part in the first resurrection, the second death has no power. While God is to the wicked a consuming fire, He is to His people both a sun and a shield. Revelation 20:6; Psalm 84:11. {GC 673.3}

21. "I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." Revelation 21:1. The fire that consumes the wicked purifies the earth. Every trace of the curse is swept away. No eternally burning hell will keep before the ransomed the fearful consequences of sin. {GC 674.1}

A) They are exposed to the radiant glory of Jesus on two different occasions and it does not destroy them. It happens before they are judged, before they suffer agony over their sinfulness. Thus, exposure to the radiant glory of Jesus is not what causes them to suffer and die. In fact, in stead of causing them agony and death, it causes them to praise Him. See 1 and 5 above.

B) They are judged and deemed worthy of death. Judgment knowledge of their loss and sinfulness does destroy them. They are still very much alive afterward. See 7-16 above.

C) While they are raging against Satan and his agents of deception, God rains down literal fire upon them. Each sinner suffers in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness and then dies. Satan is the last to die. See 17, 18, 20, and 21 above.

D) The righteous praise God for punishing and destroying them according to their sinfulness. See 19 above.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 09/28/08 10:09 PM

Quote:

Yeah, I got the order wrong. Sorry. Thanx for steering me right.

Thank you for recognizing this.

Regarding the rest of the post, this looks to be suffering from the same shortcomings I've pointed out previously. You're only quoting from GC 673, the description of a vision. The interpretation of the vision (e.g. DA 764, GC 541-543) is missing. To quote one of these:

Quote:

How does this fit in? Also, DA 107,108 tells us that the same thing that gives life to the righteous slays the wicked. How does this work?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 10/07/08 07:44 PM

Tom, I totally disagree with your assessment of the GC record of end time events. There is no indication whatsoever that it is a vision in need of interpretation. Neither is there any indication that the record in DA is an interpretation. Both say the same thing about the effects of the radiant light of God's glory and presence upon the wicked.

"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."

God is presently veiling His glory and presence. Therefore, sinners are able to live without being burned up. The "glory" of God is many things - His character, His goodness, His light, etc. The context determines which aspect of His glory is applicable.

At the end of time, when God rains down 1) fire from above and raises up 2) fire from below His glory is the radiant light of His glorious presence. The unveiled light that radiates from His physical presence is a 3) fire that causes sinful flesh and rubbish to burn up. The combined effect of all three sources of fire contributes to punishment and destruction of sin and sinners.

The reason the righteous are not also destroyed by these three sources of fire is twofold: 1) they are safely hidden within the walls of New Jerusalem from the first two sources of fire, and 2) they possess sinless flesh and are therefore not consumed by the radiant glory of God's firelight and presence.

The righteous were endowed with conditional immortality (i.e. they must regularly eat from the tree of life) when they were raised and resurrected. Thus, they already have life, that is, it isn't the radiant glory of God's firelight that gave them life. No doubt it adds to the life they already have, but it certainly isn't their only source of life.

Light of various types effects things differently depending on its material composition. For example, sunlight hardens clay and melts wax. In the case of the firelight that radiates from God's physical presence, it burns up people who possess sinful flesh and adds to the life of people who possess sinless flesh.

Above I wrote: A) They are exposed to the radiant glory of Jesus on two different occasions and it does not destroy them. It happens before they are judged, before they suffer agony over their sinfulness. Thus, exposure to the radiant glory of Jesus is not what causes them to suffer and die. In fact, instead of causing them agony and death, it causes them to praise Him. See 1 and 5 above.

Obviously, therefore, the glory of the firelight of Jesus is veiled somehow, some way to prevent sinners from burning up. Otherwise, they would burn up.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 10/08/08 02:41 AM

Bummer. I responded to this, but I don't see it.

Here's a short response.

1.God's glory is His character:

Quote:

The glory of God is His character. While Moses was in the mount, earnestly interceding with God, he prayed, "I beseech thee, show me thy glory." In answer God declared, "I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy." The glory of God--His character--was then revealed: "The Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty" (Exodus 33:18, 19; 34:6, 7).(God's Amazing Grace 322)

This is straight from Scripture. When Moses asked God to reveal His glory, God did so. What was revealed to Moses? Light? First? No, but Moses' face glowed from the glory of God, so much so those who saw him had to be veiled.

There's an important lesson here, which is that the revelation of God's glory (His character!) has physical ramifications.

2.The same thing that gives life to the righteous slays the wicked.

Quote:

The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.(DA 108)

Since literal fire does not give life to the righteous, it can not be literal fire which slays the wicked.

3.Although 1 is sufficient to establish that the glory of God is His character, future evidence that this is what DA 108 is referring to is seen by considering the very next sentence:

Quote:

In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God.

Light = revelation; Glory = character. It's right there in the underlined sentence!

4.The issue involved is spiritual, not physical. The problem the wicked have is not with God's physical presence, but with His character.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 10/13/08 05:24 PM

1. The expression "the glory of God" means many things. The context determines what it means. It does not always refer to the character of God. "... the revelation of God's glory (His character!) has physical ramifications." When in the presence of Jesus the religious leaders were not impressed with His character. In fact, they concluded He was demon possessed. The only time they experienced "physical ramifications" was when "divinity flashed through humanity".

2. The righteous were already alive; therefore, the light of God's radiant glory (the light that shines from Him!) is not what gave them light. Regularly eating the fruit of life perpetuates their life. The brightness of God's glory no doubt contributes in a meaningful way to their life perhaps in some photosynthetic way. But the same light causes sinners and sinful flesh to burn up in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness.

3. Yes, sometimes the expression "the glory of God" is a reference to His glorious character. "It would dishonor His own glorious character to let streams of grace come upon the people who will not wear the yoke of Christ, who will not bear His burdens, who will not deny self, who will not lift the cross of Christ. {WM 306.3}

4. The problem was spiritual while their was hope for the wicked. But when they committed the unpardonable sin the problem became physical.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 10/13/08 09:16 PM

Quote:

1. The expression "the glory of God" means many things. The context determines what it means. It does not always refer to the character of God. "

Here's a statement defining the glory of God.

Quote:

Now you are asserting this statement is not true, or, at least, not always true; that is, that God's glory is not necessarily His character -- it might be something else. Since we're dealing with EGW here, can you produce some statement where says that God's glory is not His character?

Quote:

2. The righteous were already alive; therefore, the light of God's radiant glory (the light that shines from Him!) is not what gave them light.

Right. So it can not be this which causes the death of the wicked.

Quote:

Regularly eating the fruit of life perpetuates their life.

Knowing God perpetuates their life: Jesus said, "To know God is life eternal."

Quote:

The brightness of God's glory no doubt contributes in a meaningful way to their life perhaps in some photosynthetic way.

This would appear to be a very shallow way of looking at things.

Quote:

But the same light causes sinners and sinful flesh to burn up in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness.

So is this. The issue involved is spiritual, not physical. It can't be understood going about it this way.

Quote:

3. Yes, sometimes the expression "the glory of God" is a reference to His glorious character.

Ok, it's good to see you don't see EGW's statement as being 100% false.

Quote:

4. The problem was spiritual while their was hope for the wicked. But when they committed the unpardonable sin the problem became physical.

The problem is a spiritual problem. Angels, spiritual beings, suffer the same problem as humans. Committing the unpardonable sin doesn't change the nature of their problem. That you would come to such an illogical conclusion should cause you to question how you're going about things, MM. How can you justify switching a spiritual problem into a physical one? Also the fact that you're straining with statements like "The brightness of God's glory no doubt contributes in a meaningful way to their life perhaps in some photosynthetic way" should be a clue you're barking up the wrong tree.

Here's a much easier explanation: Jesus Christ is the light of the glory of God, the revealer of God's character.

Quote:

In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God.

This is the very next sentence after the light of the glory of God quote:

Quote:

The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.(DA 108)

Why would you prefer the idea of "God's glory no doubt contributes in a meaningful way to their life perhaps in some photosynthetic way" to what was actually said? "Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God."

Light = revelation; Glory = character. Put these together and you get "the revealer of the character of God," which is exactly what was stated! There's nothing here about photosynthesis.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 10/14/08 08:15 PM

In reference to post 103258 above on this thread:

Judgment knowledge of their sinfulness is not what causes them to die. They are still very much alive by the time God rains down fire upon them. It is this fire, literal fire, that causes them to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness - not judgment knowledge of their loss and sinfulness. Neither are they destroyed when exposed to the radiant glory of Jesus.

A) They are exposed to the radiant glory of Jesus on two different occasions and it does not destroy them. It happens before they are judged, before they suffer agony over their sinfulness. Thus, exposure to the radiant glory of Jesus is not what causes them to suffer and die. In fact, in stead of causing them agony and death, it causes them to praise Him. See 1 and 5 above.

B) They are judged and deemed worthy of death. Judgment knowledge of their loss and sinfulness does destroy them. They are still very much alive afterward. See 7-16 above.

C) While they are raging against Satan and his agents of deception, God rains down literal fire upon them. Each sinner suffers in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness and then dies. Satan is the last to die. See 17, 18, 20, and 21 above.

D) The righteous praise God for punishing and destroying them according to their sinfulness. See 19 above.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 10/14/08 08:16 PM

In reference to the expression "the glory of God". It does not always refer to His character. Listen:

All that is given for the salvation of souls and the glory of God, is invested in the most successful enterprise in this life and in the life to come. {CS 342.1}

Deduct every action which would benefit no one, . . . and how little remains of willing service, performed for the glory of God! {OHC 187.4}

If we only realized that the glory of God is round about us, that heaven is nearer earth than we suppose, we should have a heaven in our homes while preparing for the heaven above. {7BC 961.2}

The glory of God is displayed in His handiwork. Here are mysteries that the mind will become strong in searching out. {4T 581.1}

The cloud is dark in itself, but when filled with the light, it is turned to the brightness of gold, for the glory of God is upon it. {TSB 259.3}

Whatever is done to the glory of God is to be done with cheerfulness, not with sadness and gloom. {MB 88.1}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 10/14/08 08:18 PM

PS - Tom, please explain how God's character causes the wicked to burn up and die.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 10/14/08 09:07 PM

Quote:

Judgment knowledge of their sinfulness is not what causes them to die. They are still very much alive by the time God rains down fire upon them. It is this fire, literal fire, that causes them to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness - not judgment knowledge of their loss and sinfulness. Neither are they destroyed when exposed to the radiant glory of Jesus.

A) They are exposed to the radiant glory of Jesus on two different occasions and it does not destroy them. It happens before they are judged, before they suffer agony over their sinfulness. Thus, exposure to the radiant glory of Jesus is not what causes them to suffer and die. In fact, in stead of causing them agony and death, it causes them to praise Him. See 1 and 5 above.

B) They are judged and deemed worthy of death. Judgment knowledge of their loss and sinfulness does destroy them. They are still very much alive afterward. See 7-16 above.

C) While they are raging against Satan and his agents of deception, God rains down literal fire upon them. Each sinner suffers in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness and then dies. Satan is the last to die. See 17, 18, 20, and 21 above.

D) The righteous praise God for punishing and destroying them according to their sinfulness. See 19 above.

This doesn't tie in with DA 764 or DA 107-108, or GC 543.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 10/14/08 09:16 PM

MM, regarding "glory" I'm not seeing your difficult. There's a plain statement which says "The glory of God is His character." I don't understand why you are choosing to disregard this. Actually, I do think I understand why, but I think this is an unfounded action your are taking.

Let's consider one of the statements you quoted:

Quote:

The glory of God is displayed in His handiwork. Here are mysteries that the mind will become strong in searching out. {4T 581.1}

Why would you think this doesn't mean, "The character of God is displayed in His handiwork."?

When Moses appeared to God, and asked Him to reveal His glory, what did God do? He declared His character, right? Thus God perceives His glory to be His character.

When Christ said He glorified His Father, what did He mean? He meant He had manifested His character.

Quote:

In his prayer just before his crucifixion, he declared, "I have manifested thy name." "I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." When the object of his mission was attained,--the revelation of God to the world,--the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men.

Quote:

PS - Tom, please explain how God's character causes the wicked to burn up and die.

From GC 543:

Quote:

Could those whose lives have been spent in rebellion against God be suddenly transported to heaven and witness the high, the holy state of perfection that ever exists there,-- every soul filled with love, every countenance beaming with joy, enrapturing music in melodious strains rising in honor of God and the Lamb, and ceaseless streams of light flowing upon the redeemed from the face of Him who sitteth upon the throne,--could those whose hearts are filled with hatred of God, of truth and holiness, mingle with the heavenly throng and join their songs of praise? Could they endure the glory of God and the Lamb? No, no; years of probation were granted them, that they might form characters for heaven; but they have never trained the mind to love purity; they have never learned the language of heaven, and now it is too late. 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. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.

The glory of God here is His character, which is clear not only from Ellen White's explanation elsewhere that this is the case, but by the context as well.

Quote:

Quote:

Are unpardonable sinners capable of comprehending something as pure and sinless as God's character?

They are enough to know that they don't want God or heaven. GC 543 explains this (where it discusses how their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves).

Quote:

Also, how does His character lighten New Jerusalem so that sunshine isn't needed to light it?

When God revealed His character to Moses, his face glowed, so much that he had to wear a veil. How did God's character do that? I'm sure I can't say how, but I know it did happen.

Quote:

How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in a ... burning hell ... While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy, who, instead of taking the part of these miserable objects, will say, Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!"

Where, in the pages of God's word, is such teaching to be found? Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage? No, no; such is not the teaching of the Book of God....

What would be gained to God should we admit that He delights in witnessing ... tortures; that He is regaled with the groans and shrieks and imprecations of the suffering creatures whom He holds in the flames of hell? Can these horrid sounds be music in the ear of Infinite Love? It is urged that the infliction of ... misery upon the wicked would show God's hatred of sin as an evil which is ruinous to the peace and order of the universe. Oh, dreadful blasphemy! ...

When we consider in what false colors Satan has painted the character of God, can we wonder that our merciful Creator is feared, dreaded, and even hated? The appalling views of God which have spread over the world from the teachings of the pulpit have made thousands, yes, millions, of skeptics and infidels. (GC 536)

I've asked you if there's any difference between your view and the presented in GC 536, other than the duration of the punishment, and I've understood you to say there isn't (if this is incorrect, please tell me what you see differently), so I took out the references to duration, so it would be in line with your position. How would you answer the questions she raises?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 10/20/08 04:51 PM

The glory of God revealed in Jesus does not initially cause the resurrected to suffer and die. How do you explain this?

It sounds like you think God's character is a conscious, cognizant disembodied being.

The difference in the effect of the three sources of fire Ellen speaks of in relation to the punishment and destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire and the quote you posted above is night and day. Compare with the following quote:

Satan rushes into the midst, and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and the mighty men, and the noble, and poor and miserable men, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering was there. Said the angel, The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon. {1SG 217.1}

But Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan not only bore the weight and punishment of his sins, but the sins of all the redeemed host had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of the souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan, and all the wicked host, were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, Amen! {1SG 218.1}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 10/20/08 05:50 PM

Quote:

The glory of God revealed in Jesus does not initially cause the resurrected to suffer and die. How do you explain this?

Because it hasn't been revealed yet.

Quote:

It sounds like you think God's character is a conscious, cognizant disembodied being.

It sounds like you think law and justice are sentient beings, by the way you use these terms, but I'm not aware of using such language myself in regards to God's character. Perhaps you could quote something.

Quote:

The difference in the effect of the three sources of fire Ellen speaks of in relation to the punishment and destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire and the quote you posted above is night and day.

I agree that superficially they are quite different. However, if she is not contradicting herself, there must be a way of reconciling these statements. I don't see that you have made any attempt to do so. I still have no idea what you think DA 764 means, or GC 543.

DA 108 speaks of how the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, destroys the wicked. The same thing that gives life to the one slays the other. This can't be fire. You have some theory about photosynthesis which seems like a desperate stretch. The very next sentence speaks of Jesus Christ as the "revealer of the character of God." Do you think this is just coincidence? I just lucked out, and she happened by chance to say exactly the same thing I've been saying? ("light"="revelation", "glory"="character")

She says the glory of Him who is love will destroy them, after explaining half a dozen times that the destruction of the wicked is NOT due God's doing something to them arbitrarily, but rather a result of their own choice. If what you are suggesting were true, this would be exactly wrong. Their death WOULD be true to something God is doing them (killing them with fire; capital punishment as you call it) and NOT due to their own decision. Also it would be odd in the extreme to characterize this as being destroyed by the glory of Him who is love.

The GC quote says the exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves. This means it is something they choose. I haven't seen anything at all in your presentation of your view which accounts for this.

Finally you've agreed that GC 536 agrees with your view, except for the duration:

Quote:

However, if one looks at the surrounding paragraphs, it is clear that the duration of the wicked's suffering is not the only problem with this view.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 10/21/08 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: The glory of God revealed in Jesus does not initially cause the resurrected to suffer and die. How do you explain this?

T: Because it hasn't been revealed yet.

Have you no idea which quote I’m referring to? It’s GC 662-674. Listen:

Quote:

Every eye in that vast multitude is turned to behold the glory of the Son of God. With one voice the wicked hosts exclaim: "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!" {GC 662.2}

Now Christ again appears to the view of His enemies. Far above the city, upon a foundation of burnished gold, is a throne, high and lifted up. Upon this throne sits the Son of God, and around Him are the subjects of His kingdom. The power and majesty of Christ no language can describe, no pen portray. The glory of the Eternal Father is enshrouding His Son. The brightness of His presence fills the City of God, and flows out beyond the gates, flooding the whole earth with its radiance. {GC 665.1}

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. They see just where their feet diverged from the path of purity and holiness, just how far pride and rebellion have carried them in the violation of the law of God. The seductive temptations which they encouraged by indulgence in sin, the blessings perverted, the messengers of God despised, the warnings rejected, the waves of mercy beaten back by the stubborn, unrepentant heart--all appear as if written in letters of fire. {GC 666.2}

Notwithstanding that Satan has been constrained to acknowledge God's justice and to bow to the supremacy of Christ, his character remains unchanged. The spirit of rebellion, like a mighty torrent, again bursts forth. Filled with frenzy, he determines not to yield the great controversy. The time has come for a last desperate struggle against the King of heaven. He rushes into the midst of his subjects and endeavors to inspire them with his own fury and arouse them to instant battle. But of all the countless millions whom he has allured into rebellion, there are none now to acknowledge his supremacy. His power is at an end. The wicked are filled with the same hatred of God that inspires Satan; but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah. 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. {GC 671.2}

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. 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}

This passage (above) makes it abundantly clear that the wicked are not consumed or destroyed by the radiant glory of God as revealed in Jesus.

Quote:

M: It sounds like you think God's character is a conscious, cognizant disembodied being.

T: It sounds like you think law and justice are sentient beings, by the way you use these terms, but I'm not aware of using such language myself in regards to God's character. Perhaps you could quote something.

You believe it is God’s character, not God, that causes the wicked to suffer and die in the lake of fire. You also believe it is sin, not God, that causes the wicked to suffer and die in the lake of fire. There are dozens of places where the SOP uses expressions like "the law requires" and "justice demands". But where does she say "God's character is what causes the wicked to suffer"?

Quote:

M: The difference in the effect of the three sources of fire Ellen speaks of in relation to the punishment and destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire and the quote you posted above is night and day.

T: I agree that superficially they are quite different. However, if she is not contradicting herself, there must be a way of reconciling these statements. I don't see that you have made any attempt to do so. I still have no idea what you think DA 764 means, or GC 543.

DA 108 speaks of how the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, destroys the wicked. The same thing that gives life to the one slays the other. This can't be fire. You have some theory about photosynthesis which seems like a desperate stretch. The very next sentence speaks of Jesus Christ as the "revealer of the character of God." Do you think this is just coincidence? I just lucked out, and she happened by chance to say exactly the same thing I've been saying? ("light"="revelation", "glory"="character")

She says the glory of Him who is love will destroy them, after explaining half a dozen times that the destruction of the wicked is NOT due God's doing something to them arbitrarily, but rather a result of their own choice. If what you are suggesting were true, this would be exactly wrong. Their death WOULD be true to something God is doing them (killing them with fire; capital punishment as you call it) and NOT due to their own decision. Also it would be odd in the extreme to characterize this as being destroyed by the glory of Him who is love.

The GC quote says the exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves. This means it is something they choose. I haven't seen anything at all in your presentation of your view which accounts for this.

The light of God’s radiant glory is light. Like sunlight, the light of God’s radiant glory can give life or take life. Sinful flesh cannot abide in the light of God’s radiant glory, whereas, sinless flesh can. God veils the radiant light of His glory so as not to cause sinners to die. When the wicked turn their rage upon Satan, as described in GC 671.2 (quoted above), God rains down fire from above and raises up fire from below, and together with the fire light of God’s radiant glory, the wicked suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness, then they finally die.

Quote:

Finally you've agreed that GC 536 agrees with your view, except for the duration:

Quote:

However, if one looks at the surrounding paragraphs, it is clear that the duration of the wicked's suffering is not the only problem with this view.

Quote:

The Bible and SOP simply say it will happen. Taking into account DA 764, DA 107-108, GC 543, and GC chapter 42 the SOP describes 3 sources of fire involved in the execution of judgment - 1) fire rained down from above, 2) fire raised up from below, and 3) the fire light of God's radiant glory. None of these sources of fire are symbolic.

This isn't dealing with the issues I raised. DA 108 speaks of the same thing which gives life to the righteous being what slays the wicked. The "light of the glory of God" is Jesus Christ, the "revealer of God's character." That my interpretation is correct can be seen by the fact that she identifies Christ as "the revealer of God's character," immediately after speaking of "the light of the glory of God" which "gives life to the righteous" (it is Jesus Christ who does this!).

Quote:

The fact the resurrected sinners are not initially consumed by the radiant glory of Christ is evidence He is veiling it.

I don't disagree with this at all. Where I differ with you is regarding of what the glory of God consists of.

Actually the whole difference I see in our view of things in regards to the judgment is that you see it in physical rather than spiritual terms.

GC 543 brings out the exclusion of the wicked from heaven is voluntary with themselves. It's not dealing with fire at all.

DA 764 brings out how the destruction of the wicked is due to their own choice, so is similar to GC 543 in this regard. It also brings out that it is the "result of sin," something they are "left to reap." Surely if I killed you by igniting you with a flamethrower, this could not be described in the terms of the passages in GC 543, DA 108 and DA 764.

There is also the problem of GC 536.

Quote:

The surrounding paragraphs should be considered as well. The issue here is deeper than simply one of duration. She characterizes the burning of the wicked with fire as "torture." If this burning is a matter of days our hours, rather than ceaseless, it would nonetheless still be "torture."

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 10/22/08 09:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

The wages of sin is instant death - not a lifetime of suffering. The reasons sinners live on to suffer the consequences of sinning is because God implemented the plan of salvation. Otherwise, they would have been immediately blotted out of existence.

The thing that is not arbitrary about God punishing and destroying sinners in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness is the fact He didn't just wake up one day and decide to kill a bunch of sinners. God doesn't make up the rules on the fly. He is regulated by law and justice what He must do and what He must not do, namely, He must punish and destroy impenitent sinners according to their sinfulness and He must not pardon and save penitent sinners irrespective of their past sins. In other words, Jesus must pay their sin debt of death for death must come in consequence of their sins.

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: The fact the resurrected sinners are not initially consumed by the radiant glory of Christ is evidence He is veiling it.

T: I don't disagree with this at all.

I had no idea you agree with me on this point. Surprise, surprise.

Originally Posted By: Tom

Where I differ with you is regarding of what the glory of God consists of. Actually the whole difference I see in our view of things in regards to the judgment is that you see it in physical rather than spiritual terms.

You will be happy to learn you are wrong about me. I believe several things are involved in the execution of justice upon sinners in the lake of fire - physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual. God wired humans in such a way it is impossible for them to face judgment without having to wrestle with all of these aspects of their makeup and constitution.

Regarding the nature of the light of God's radiant glory, you're right, we do not agree. I believe it is similar to sunlight in that it gives and takes life depending on the nature of the material substance it interacts with, namely, it gives life to those who possess sinless flesh and it takes life from those who possess sinful flesh.

Originally Posted By: Tom

GC 543 brings out the exclusion of the wicked from heaven is voluntary with themselves. It's not dealing with fire at all.

Nor does it deal with death.

Originally Posted By: Tom

DA 764 brings out how the destruction of the wicked is due to their own choice, so is similar to GC 543 in this regard. It also brings out that it is the "result of sin," something they are "left to reap." Surely if I killed you by igniting you with a flamethrower, this could not be described in the terms of the passages in GC 543, DA 108 and DA 764.

When a murderer is sentenced to death by lethal injection it is the result of breaking the law. He is left to reap the results of his choosing. So it is with divine justice. There is nothing arbitrary about God executing sinners. The penalty for sinning is death by fire. That's the law.

Originally Posted By: Tom

The issue here is deeper than simply one of duration. She characterizes the burning of the wicked with fire as "torture." If this burning is a matter of days our hours, rather than ceaseless, it would nonetheless still be "torture."

Even you agree it is the consuming fire of God's radiant glory that causes sinners to suffer and die. Whether His consuming fire is literal or symbolic doesn't really matter so far as the rightness of sinners suffering in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. Some people whine and complain that God is cruel and tyrannical for resurrecting sinners instead of leaving well enough alone. Others accuse God of torturing sinners instead of simply withdrawing the breath of life and allowing them to die immediately.

Your view of God resurrecting sinners for the purpose of exposing them to His unveiled glory so that they can suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness is considered by many people to be hideous and misrepresentative of God's glorious character. How do you defend your view of God and justice and judgment in light of these accusations? What is to be gain by resurrecting sinners? Why not leave them dead?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 10/23/08 06:37 AM

God is not regulated by the law as to what He must and must not do. Putting the law above God is idolatry.

Quote:

Regarding the nature of the light of God's radiant glory, you're right, we do not agree. I believe it is similar to sunlight in that it gives and takes life depending on the nature of the material substance it interacts with, namely, it gives life to those who possess sinless flesh and it takes life from those who possess sinful flesh.

This is what I meant by saying you see things in physical terms as opposed to spiritual. I don't see how anyone can read this:

Quote:

The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.

In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God.(DA 108)

and conclude this is dealing with physical light. First of all, the idea that physical light gives light to the righteous is odd. Secondly, it says "the revealer of the character of God." The context of "glory of God" here is clearly character. Given Ellen White says the glory of God is His character, you must accept that at least some of the time when she speaks of God's character, that's what she means. Now when she explicitly speaks of God's character, how do you try to make it mean something physical instead?

If you look at the whole context, the whole thing is spiritual:

Quote:

"I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance," said John; "but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Matt. 3:11, R. V., margin. The prophet Isaiah had declared that the Lord would cleanse His people from their iniquities "by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." The word of the Lord to Israel was, "I will turn My hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin." Isa. 4:4; 1:25. To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. 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. Jacob, after his night of wrestling with the Angel, exclaimed, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Gen. 32: 30.
Page 108
Jacob had been guilty of a great sin in his conduct toward Esau; but he had repented. His transgression had been forgiven, and his sin purged; therefore he could endure the revelation of God's presence. But wherever men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed. At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.

In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God. His very presence would make manifest to men their sin. Only as they were willing to be purged from sin could they enter into fellowship with Him. Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence.

There's absolutely nothing in any of this to suggest the idea that physical fire or light gives life to the righteous. Look where she says, "Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence." This is speaking of Jesus Christ in the flesh. He didn't have any radiant light shining from Him. This is talking about His character! Christ's presence makes manifest to men their sin. That's why they couldn't abide His presence. This is why they won't be able to abide His presence in the judgment as well. This is why the glory of Him who is love will destroy them, because His character will make manifest their sin; that's what they can't stand.

Quote:

T:GC 543 brings out the exclusion of the wicked from heaven is voluntary with themselves. It's not dealing with fire at all.

MM:Nor does it deal with death.

Sure it does. Have your read the passage?

Quote:

"The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23. While life is the inheritance of the righteous, death is the portion of the wicked.

The whole context is dealing with the death of the wicked.

Quote:

This is an attempt to twist what DA 764 is saying to fit a paradigm which doesn't fit. For example:

Quote:

Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. (GC 543)

Quote:

It's hard to see how this passage could be interpreted more diametrically opposed to what it's saying than what you just said above. The big flaw I see in all your reasoning is that you perceive sin to be innocuous. It has no power to destroy or cause death. Sinners die not because there is anything destructive or bad about sin itself, but because God burns them.

Quote:

Your view of God resurrecting sinners for the purpose of exposing them to His unveiled glory so that they can suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness is considered by many people to be hideous and misrepresentative of God's glorious character. How do you defend your view of God and justice and judgment in light of these accusations? What is to be gain by resurrecting sinners? Why not leave them dead?

I've invited you to start a thread on this subject. I asked this question about 5 years ago, I think, and it's still being discussed on another forum I visit. It's a very good question, so again, I'd invite you to start a thread to discuss it. A short comment is that your assertion here is totally false:

Quote:

Your view of God resurrecting sinners for the purpose of exposing them to His unveiled glory so that they can suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness

This is not my view! Once again, I'd invite you to quote something I've actually said. To be clear as to where your assertion is off is in regards to your use of the word "purpose." The purpose of the judgment is not to cause suffering or death. Suffering and death is an unfortunate consequence of sin, not something which God purposes. Given how vociferously I have argued against this idea, that God purposes suffering and death, it's odd that you would attribute this idea to me.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 10/25/08 10:38 PM

T: God is not regulated by the law as to what He must and must not do. Putting the law above God is idolatry.

EGW: By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. {6BC 1095.4}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 10/26/08 04:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

a.Satan, in order to win converts, misrepresented God's character.
b.By deceiving man, man became enslaved to sin.
c.Sin has fatal effects, from which man must be healed.
d.Since what enslaved man was a misrepresentation of God's character, what liberates man is the truth about God's character.

Sinners would have lived indefinitely if allowed to eat of the tree of life. "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." (Genesis 3:22) Thus, sin isn't what kills sinners. We both agree it is the glory of God that consumes sin and sinners in the lake of fire at the end of time. The first death is not the real results of sinning. The real results of sinning happen after the second resurrection.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/04/08 06:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Kland

Pardon me for interjecting on the tail end of this. Perhaps you two have discussed this before, but I couldn't help noticing it may be helpful to replace "law" with "God's character"?

There are aspects of the law which are not a transcript of God's character, namely, the law cannot pardon or save sinners from the death penalty. The law can only condemn sinners and point them to Jesus as the only source of pardon and salvation.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/06/08 04:03 AM

Quote:

I agree with your comments. He bound Himself by His word to act in harmony with His character. Of course this had no effect on Himself, since He would always act in accordance with His character anyway, but how He communicates to His creatures opens up things about Himself to them.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/06/08 04:11 AM

Quote:

The Scriptures say all over the place that sin kills.
"The wages of sin is death."
"The soul that sins shall die."
"And sin, when it is finished, brings forth death."

This last one, by James, is especially clear.

John says:

Quote:

14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:14, 15)

Quote:

This refers to "the fatal effects of sin." In other words, "sin kills!"

Note the last phrase: "Christ has power and virtue in Himself to heal the repenting sinner."

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 11/07/08 03:41 AM

Tom, could MM be correct when you look at it that sin doesn't kill, but lack of the source of life kills? Of course, you would also be correct since God gives life, and when one separates himself from God (by sinning), he separates from the Lifegiver, and therefore, he dies.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Quote:

causing death (Webster)

Death *is* the fatal consequence of sinning, not freedom from it.

Quote:

The tree of life had special healing powers. Sin has "fatal effects," which are, um, fatal, unless action is taken to prevent them from occurring.

Quote:

T: That would mean there is nothing intrinsically fatal about sin.

M: Sinning is fatal not only because it forces God to resurrect them and punish them according to their sinfulness but because they also live a life full of misery and hopelessness.

I think you're not understanding what "fatal" means. "Fatal" means "causes death." Sin is fatal because it causes death.

Quote:

T: The only reason that sinners would die would be because God killed them.

M: Remember, God must resurrect them in order to punish them according to their sinfulness. If sin kills then there would be no reason to resurrect them.

You assert:
a.The reason God must resurrect the wicked is in order to punish them according to their sinfulness
b.If sin kills, there would be no reason to resurrect them.

So you are asserting that if sin kills, then God does not need to resurrect the wicked in order to punish them according to their sinfulness. Why not?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/09/08 06:01 AM

I agree, kland. The death that sin causes which we are discussing is the second death, not the first. It's a spiritual problem, not a physical one (although, since man is indivisible, that which affects the spirit affects the physical).

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/09/08 10:15 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

Quote:

Again, A&E did not die in the day they sinned because Jesus died in their place that same day. Also, they didn't live forever in a sinful state because God barred access to the tree of life.

GC 533
Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. But cherubim and a flaming sword kept "the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24), and not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to pass that barrier and partake of the life-giving fruit. Therefore there is not an immortal sinner. {GC 533.3}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/09/08 10:20 PM

Tom, here's how Ellen uses the word "fatal": "Nadab and Abihu would never have committed that fatal sin had they not first become partially intoxicated by the free use of wine." {CC 101.2} In this case it was fire proceeding from the "divine presence" in the sanctuary that killed Nadab and Abihu. It was punishment that proved to be fatal - not the sin of offering strange fire. That is, offering strange fire did not cause fire to proceed from the sanctuary and kill them.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/09/08 10:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Why not? Because sin already meted out its consequences. There would be no reason for God to resurrect them since their rejection of Jesus landed them in a hopeless grave. However, if sin doesn't punish sinners, then the first death does not serve to satisfy law and justice. In this case God must resurrect them to execute justice and judgment in consequence of their sins.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/10/08 12:21 AM

Quote:

Why not? Because sin already meted out its consequences.

But this isn't right. No one has experienced the death that sin metes out except for Jesus Christ. This doesn't happen until the judgment.

Quote:

However, if sin doesn't punish sinners, then the first death does not serve to satisfy law and justice.

Sin doesn't "punish" sinners, it kills them. That's their punishment.

Regardless of whether sin kill sinners, the first death does not serve to satisfy law and justice. The first death has nothing to do with this. It just a result of Adam's having sinned.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 11/10/08 03:34 PM

Quote:

However, if sin doesn't punish sinners, then the first death does not serve to satisfy law and justice. In this case God must resurrect them to execute justice and judgment in consequence of their sins.

If I reject God, he's going to resurrect me to punish me?

What will I learn?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/10/08 06:52 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

Quote:

If I reject God, he's going to resurrect me to punish me?

What will I learn?

Please consider the following passages:

Matthew
25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Hebrews
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 11/11/08 01:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Please consider the following passages:

Ok, I have. And "everlasting punishment" sounds terrible!

What will I learn? How will it correct me?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/11/08 07:41 AM

Quote:

If I reject God, he's going to resurrect me to punish me?

Excellent question! This doesn't speak well of God, does it?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 11/11/08 02:48 PM

No, it doesn't. And I'm a little perplexed by Mountain Man's implication of eternal punishment as eternal torment.

Posted By: Colin

Re: The Covenants - 11/11/08 09:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Quote:

If I reject God, he's going to resurrect me to punish me?

Excellent question! This doesn't speak well of God, does it?

Those who reject God's grace are deserving of his wrath: don't bring God down to less than holy and just and good! I don't know whether you support the death penalty of this world or not, but God is very clear about using it for rejectors of his grace...

If God were not to punish the unrepentant wicked he wouldn't be very holy would he? - GC is clear on the fires of hell having retributive qualities: the loving character of God having been established beyond doubt on judgement day, and every knee having bowed to the Son of God, the Devil shall still be the last to perish for ever in the flames. The importance of clarifying God's love to the world is pertinent today, but on the executive judgement day its clarity brings consequences.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/11/08 11:50 PM

The question that kland asked has to do with the motivation of resurrecting the wicked. At least, that's what I understood him to be asking.

My point was that if we have the following scenario:
a.A being rejects God
b.That being is resurrected so that God can punish him,

This isn't a scenario which looks to speak well of God. Why would a good person have a need to punish someone who rejects him?

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 11/13/08 02:52 AM

Might it be possible that they are resurrected to do the final "accounting" for sin, in which God is ultimately declared just, holy, and good--having been on trial for ~7000 years?

And might it be possible that God unveils Himself before all, causing death to the sinners, for no mortal can look upon God and live?

It seems that if we are not "dying to see God" now, we will be then.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/13/08 03:55 PM

Quote:

Might it be possible that they are resurrected to do the final "accounting" for sin, in which God is ultimately declared just, holy, and good--having been on trial for ~7000 years?

I think this is definitely involved. Scripture speaks of how "every knee will bow." The SOP speaks of how every intelligent being will acknowledge that God has been right and fair in His treatment of all. ("right and fair" are my words, I don't remember hers exactly; "just, holy and good" is of course how Paul speaks of the law, and this would apply very well to God's character as well.)

Quote:

And might it be possible that God unveils Himself before all, causing death to the sinners, for no mortal can look upon God and live?

I think this is correct too. The "Desire of Ages" says:

Quote:

The glory of God is His character, so this seems like the same idea you are suggesting.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/14/08 08:51 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

MM: However, if sin doesn't punish sinners, then the first death does not serve to satisfy law and justice. In this case God must resurrect them to execute justice and judgment in consequence of their sins.

K: If I reject God, he's going to resurrect me to punish me?
What will I learn?

MM: Please consider the following passages:

K: Ok, I have. And "everlasting punishment" sounds terrible! What will I learn? How will it correct me? . . . I'm a little perplexed by Mountain Man's implication of eternal punishment as eternal torment.

Here's what I posted initially - "In this case God must resurrect them to execute justice and judgment in consequence of their sins." The passages I posted make it clear that God will "punish" (not torture) the wicked with "everlasting punishment". The reason God must resurrect them is due to the fact the first death does not satisfy the demands of law and justice, namely, punishment "according to their works".

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/15/08 02:25 AM

This says "torture":

Quote:

You've said you agree with this, except for the "unceasing" part.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/15/08 06:41 PM

Tom, where did I say I agree with this quote except for the unceasing part? Because the truth is - I do not believe God finds pleasure in punishing people.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/16/08 06:14 AM

I asked you if you saw anything wrong with this description other than the duration, and you only mentioned the time as being in error. I'll quote the text more in full to give more context:

Quote:

How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell; that for the sins of a brief earthly life they are to suffer torture as long as God shall live. Yet this doctrine has been widely taught and is still embodied in many of the creeds of Christendom. Said a learned doctor of divinity: "The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. When they see others who are of the same nature and born under the same circumstances, plunged in such misery, and they so distinguished, it will make them sensible of how happy they are." Another used these words: "While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy, who, instead of taking the part of these miserable objects, will say, Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!"

Where, in the pages of God's word, is such teaching to be found? Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage? No, no; such is not the teaching of the Book of God. Those who present the views expressed in the quotations given above may be learned and even honest men, but they are deluded by the sophistry of Satan. He leads them to misconstrue strong expressions of Scripture, giving to the language the coloring of bitterness and malignity which pertains to himself, but not to our Creator. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?" Ezekiel 33:11. (GC 535)

Then follows the paragraph mentioned previously.

This looked to me like a description of the view you've been presenting, except for the time of the punishment being unceasing as opposed to finite. It even has your idea of " Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!" included.

I have no desire to misrepresent you, so I'll ask again to please point out any differences you have with what is presented here and what you believe will happen.

In particular, burning someone alive is unspeakably cruel. It's unbelievable to me that someone could think things out carefully, and come to the conclusion that God has a character which would allow Him to burn people alive, causing them to suffer for many hours or many days, in order to make them pay for sins they've committed. If God would do such a thing, and we are supposed to be like Him in character, should we be capable of doing like things?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/17/08 01:13 AM

Tom, why are you asking me to explain what Ellen wrote? She explained it herself later on in the same book. God has on several occasions employed fire to punish impenitent sinners. There is nothing cruel about it. God is love. The wrath of God is love. Listen:

Quote:

"Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." "The indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: He hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter." "Upon the wicked He shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup." Isaiah 9:5; 34:2; Psalm 11:6, margin. 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. 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}

Satan's work of ruin is forever ended. For six thousand years he has wrought his will, filling the earth with woe and causing grief throughout the universe. The whole creation has groaned and travailed together in pain. Now God's creatures are forever delivered from his presence and temptations. "The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they [the righteous] break forth into singing." Isaiah 14:7. And a shout of praise and triumph ascends from the whole loyal universe. "The voice of a great multitude," "as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings," is heard, saying: "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." Revelation 19:6. {GC 673.2}

While the earth was wrapped in the fire of destruction, the righteous abode safely in the Holy City. Upon those that had part in the first resurrection, the second death has no power. While God is to the wicked a consuming fire, He is to His people both a sun and a shield. Revelation 20:6; Psalm 84:11. {GC 673.3}

"I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." Revelation 21:1. The fire that consumes the wicked purifies the earth. Every trace of the curse is swept away. No eternally burning hell will keep before the ransomed the fearful consequences of sin. {GC 674.1}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/17/08 01:57 AM

I wasn't asking her to explain what she wrote, I don't think. I was pointing out that your view is the same as what she presented in GC 536, except for the punishment (or torture) not being ceaseless.

Burning people alive is torture. Calling is "punishment," makes it no less torture. A rose by any other name smells as sweet, and burning people alive, by whatever name, is cruelty.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 11/17/08 04:40 PM

Quote:

MM: The passages I posted make it clear that God will "punish" (not torture) the wicked with "everlasting punishment".

In keeping with the implied, "we all know what punishment means", do we all know what "Vengeance" means? Applying vengeance eternally and everlastingly can only mean torture. We all "know" it.

Quote:

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Everlasting punishment is contrasted with life eternal. Does eternal life cease, or does everlasting punishment continue? If it continues, would that not be "torture"? Other religions use that argument.

And your statement of

Quote:

The wrath of God is love.

strikes me like political speech. Unless you are explaining what "wrath" means. Which then would contradict some of your other statements.

But, perhaps, could it be that punishment and vengeance and eternal could mean something different here? I believe you intend "everlasting" to mean the results of it and not the action continuing. I'm not sure you could modify the meaning of one without modifying the meaning of the other.

If I need to be more specific, I asked, what will I learn, how will it correct me when God raises me for the purpose of "punishing" me. That sounds like some vindictive and vengeful God seeking to torture me. Your explanation of

Quote:

The reason God must resurrect them is due to the fact the first death does not satisfy the demands of law and justice, namely, punishment "according to their works".

doesn't seem to answer the question dealing with what my idea for purpose of "punishment" is. Perhaps you could share what punishment means to you if not to teach, correct, and lead.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/17/08 06:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

So you say. What about drowning people alive? Is that cruelty? God drowned millions of people in the Flood. You seem to think God cannot punish and destroy sinners because it is inconsistent with His character. But listen:

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}

God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner. Men reason from their own low standard of right and justice. "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself" (Ps. 50:21). They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do. . . . {LDE 240.5}

In no kingdom or government is it left to the lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken the law. All we have, all the bounties of His grace which we possess, we owe to God. The aggravating character of sin against such a God cannot be estimated any more than the heavens can be measured with a span. God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force. {LDE 241.1}

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. {LDE 241.2}

Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?--12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876). {LDE 241.3}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/17/08 06:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

I was pointing out that your view is the same as what she presented in GC 536, except for the punishment (or torture) not being ceaseless.

You are wrong, Tom, dead wrong. There is more I disagree with than what you say. I do not believe God finds pleasure in punishing people. Circumstances forces Him to do it, but He is not willing that any should perish. Yes, He is pleased law and justice are served and satisfied, but not pleased sinners neglect heaven-sent opportunities for learning the way of peace and righteousness, not pleased they reject Jesus.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/17/08 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

And your statement of "The wrath of God is love" strikes me like political speech. Unless you are explaining what "wrath" means. Which then would contradict some of your other statements.

But, perhaps, could it be that punishment and vengeance and eternal could mean something different here? I believe you intend "everlasting" to mean the results of it and not the action continuing. I'm not sure you could modify the meaning of one without modifying the meaning of the other.

If I need to be more specific, I asked, what will I learn, how will it correct me when God raises me for the purpose of "punishing" me. That sounds like some vindictive and vengeful God seeking to torture me.

Your explanation of "The reason God must resurrect them is due to the fact the first death does not satisfy the demands of law and justice, namely, punishment "according to their works" doesn't seem to answer the question dealing with what my idea for purpose of "punishment" is. Perhaps you could share what punishment means to you if not to teach, correct, and lead.

Even God refers to these kinds of things as His "strange act". I do not pretend to understand everything there is to know about why God punishes and destroys impenitent sinners. That He does, is clear in the Bible.

Isaiah
28:21 For the LORD shall rise up as [in] mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as [in] the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.

GC 627
God's judgments will be visited upon those who are seeking to oppress and destroy His people. His long forbearance with the wicked emboldens men in transgression, but their punishment is nonetheless certain and terrible because it is long delayed. "The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act." Isaiah 28:21. 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." Ezekiel 33:11. The Lord is "merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, . . . forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." 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." Exodus 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. {GC 627.2}

PP 628
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. "The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act." Isaiah 28:21. 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; but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Ezekiel 33:11. The Lord is "merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, . . . forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." Exodus 34:6, 7. 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 have become hardened in sin. "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. 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. {PP 628.1}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/18/08 01:40 AM

Quote:

T:I was pointing out that your view is the same as what she presented in GC 536, except for the punishment (or torture) not being ceaseless.

M:You are wrong, Tom, dead wrong.

I was just going by what you said. I asked you specifically to name something different about the view, other than the duration, and all you mentioned was the duration.

Quote:

There is more I disagree with than what you say. I do not believe God finds pleasure in punishing people. Circumstances forces Him to do it, but He is not willing that any should perish. Yes, He is pleased law and justice are served and satisfied, but not pleased sinners neglect heaven-sent opportunities for learning the way of peace and righteousness, not pleased they reject Jesus.

Ok. Glad to hear this. She was commenting on this portion:

Quote:

"While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy, who, instead of taking the part of these miserable objects, will say, Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!"

I recall you're saying something similar to this earlier (i.e., similar to what I've quoted here, about their being praise happening when the wicked are being burned alive). I'm understanding correctly that you are now disagreeing with this?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/18/08 01:52 AM

Quote:

So you say.

Shakespeare said it first. I must give credit where it's due.

Quote:

What about drowning people alive? Is that cruelty? God drowned millions of people in the Flood. You seem to think God cannot punish and destroy sinners because it is inconsistent with His character. But listen:

Is your argument here that God was cruel in flooding people, so it's OK for Him to be cruel in burning people alive? I have no idea why you're bringing up the Flood here.

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 11/18/08 02:25 AM

Mike,

You've provided some excellent quotes here. It is obvious to me that God can do what He chooses to do, and that we, being sinful subjects of His, should not be trying to say that God cannot punish us because it would be too cruel. He is, after all, so great, that Ellen White was also inspired to write the following:

Originally Posted By: Ellen White

I saw that God's holy name should be used with reverence and awe. The words God Almighty are coupled together and used by some in prayer in a careless, thoughtless manner, which is displeasing to Him. Such have no realizing sense of God or the truth, or they would not speak so irreverently of the great and dreadful God, who is soon to judge them in the last day. Said the angel, "Couple them not together; for fearful is His name." Those who realize the greatness and majesty of God, will take His name on their lips with holy awe. He dwelleth in light unapproachable; no man can see Him and live. I saw that these things will have to be understood and corrected before the church can prosper. {EW 122.1}

Some think it a mark of humility to pray to God in a common manner. . . . They profane His name by needlessly and irreverently mingling with their prayers the words, "God Almighty"--awful, sacred words, which should never pass the lips except in subdued tones and with a feeling of awe. {FLB 41.4}

Regarding the "everlasting" portion of the punishment which will come to the wicked, the Bible is clear. The fire is eternal. But death is the reward for sin, so the sinners are not immortal.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/18/08 04:33 AM

Thank you, GC. Indeed, God is holy, and whatever He does is holy - even if it doesn't make sense to us even if it is a "strange act".

Revelation
4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/18/08 04:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

They will praise the justice of God. They will not find pleasure in the fact the wicked are being punished according to their sinfulness.

Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.

Revelation
18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/18/08 04:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: What about drowning people alive? Is that cruelty? God drowned millions of people in the Flood. You seem to think God cannot punish and destroy sinners because it is inconsistent with His character. But listen:

T: Is your argument here that God was cruel in flooding people, so it's OK for Him to be cruel in burning people alive? I have no idea why you're bringing up the Flood here.

I asked you a question. Please answer it.

1. Do you think God was being cruel when He drowned alive millions of men, women, and children in the Flood?

2. And, do you think God was being cruel when He burned alive hundreds of men, women, and children in the fires of Sodom?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/18/08 10:08 AM

I asked you a question. What does the flood have to do with this? Why are you bringing it up?

Rather than answer my question, you bring up something else. Why are you bringing up Sodom and Gomorrah?

If you're out of the blue going to ask questions about subjects other than what we are talking about, you should provide some sort of motivation for doing so.

Quote:

Ok, so you're agreeing with the following?

Quote:

(except for the duration).

Quote:

Indeed, God is holy, and whatever He does is holy - even if it doesn't make sense to us even if it is a "strange act".

Certainly God is holy, but if we see Him as acting completely contrary to Jesus Christ, doing things like burning people alive to "punish" them, we need to seriously question *our* ideas of God's character, not God's holiness.

It sounds like what is being suggested is that since God is holy, He can do whatever He wants, including cruelly punishing people. Who are we to question His burning people alive? After all, He is God; He can do whatever He wants.

I don't believe either that God is like this, nor that He desires that we view His activities in such a way (i.e., that He can do whatever He wants because He is God.) It's certainly true that God is powerful enough to do whatever He wants, but God does not desire a slavish obedience. He desires that His creatures have an intelligent appreciation of His character, the main feature of which is that God is love.

Quote:

Thus the arch-fiend clothes with his own attributes the Creator and Benefactor of mankind. Cruelty is Satanic. God is love... (GC 534)

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 11/18/08 04:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

So you say. What about drowning people alive? Is that cruelty? God drowned millions of people in the Flood.
....
'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.'

Would you be bringing up the flood as saying that what God did during the flood is the same as what God will ultimately do to those who reject him?

Quote:

They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do. . . . {LDE 240.5}

But, it seems like you are reasoning that you would drown the people in the flood, so therefore God would do so, too? How is what you are claiming God would do to those who reject Him any different than what a dictator would do to those who reject him? A dictator may say,

Quote:

Be loyal to me and I'll provide you with fancy houses, fancy cars, and fancy women.
Dare question me, and you'll be taken out back and hear a little pop.
But, I'm only doing it to satisfy justice and eliminate dissent.
For I am a loving dictator and am happy to provide for your needs, but rules must be followed so that we all can live in harmony.
Does anyone disagree with that?.....I didn't think so.

[meanwhile, they are plotting his death. Why?]

Quote:

Yes, He is pleased law and justice are served and satisfied, but not pleased sinners neglect heaven-sent opportunities for learning the way of peace and righteousness, not pleased they reject Jesus.
....

Even God refers to these kinds of things as His "strange act".

I too am wondering why you did not answer the question of why you brought up the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah. Another thing missing is why you did not address what "punishment" means. Here is what it sounds like you are saying to me:

God would like people to accept Him.
He gives them opportunities to learn about Him and accept Him.
However, if they still reject Him, He punishes them even though it is too late to teach, correct, or lead them in the way they should go.
God then takes great pleasure in His "strange act" of ..... (I'm not sure what you would put here)

So, it appears, the purpose of this punishment is to satisfy some "vengeful" feelings of God being right. What is "torture", if not satisfying some personal sense of "justice" with no hope of teaching?

Is it possible to allow that God, who is currently sustaining life in spite of sin, will bring to pass His strange act in finally allowing sinners to experience what happens when they separate from the source of life? Through their own choice and no direct act from God other than allowing them that choice?

Again, what is your definition of punishment and how does that fit in with what you think God does to those who reject Him?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/18/08 10:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Tom, the following questions are relevant to me, which is why I am asking them:

1. Do you think God was being cruel when He drowned alive millions of men, women, and children in the Flood?

2. And, do you think God was being cruel when He burned alive hundreds of men, women, and children in the fires of Sodom?

Originally Posted By: Tom

T: I recall you're saying something similar to this earlier (i.e., similar to what I've quoted here, about their being praise happening when the wicked are being burned alive). I'm understanding correctly that you are now disagreeing with this?

M: They will praise the justice of God. They will not find pleasure in the fact the wicked are being punished according to their sinfulness.

T: Ok, so you're agreeing with the following? "While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy, who, instead of taking the part of these miserable objects, will say, Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!" (except for the duration).

Whatever. I've clearly addressed this question and you refuse to believe me. What more can I say to dissuade you from believing a lie?

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: Indeed, God is holy, and whatever He does is holy - even if it doesn't make sense to us even if it is a "strange act".

T: Certainly God is holy, but if we see Him as acting completely contrary to Jesus Christ, doing things like burning people alive to "punish" them, we need to seriously question *our* ideas of God's character, not God's holiness.

It sounds like what is being suggested is that since God is holy, He can do whatever He wants, including cruelly punishing people. Who are we to question His burning people alive? After all, He is God; He can do whatever He wants.

I don't believe either that God is like this, nor that He desires that we view His activities in such a way (i.e., that He can do whatever He wants because He is God.) It's certainly true that God is powerful enough to do whatever He wants, but God does not desire a slavish obedience. He desires that His creatures have an intelligent appreciation of His character, the main feature of which is that God is love.

Quote:

Thus the arch-fiend clothes with his own attributes the Creator and Benefactor of mankind. Cruelty is Satanic. God is love... (GC 534)

Your comments here lead me to ask the two questions posted above (the ones you have yet to answer). Do you consider it cruel because God employed water and fire to drown and burn people alive?

Also, you seem willing to attribute to Satan the judgments of God. How is this different than what was done in the following account:

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. {PP 404.4}

The Bible describes the punishment of the 250 men who sympathized with Korah and found fault with God: "And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." Numbers 16:35.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/18/08 10:42 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

Would you be bringing up the flood as saying that what God did during the flood is the same as what God will ultimately do to those who reject him?

Yes. The same is true of Sodom. In fact, the Bible states it quite nicely, as usual:

Matthew
24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke
17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all.
17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

2 Peter
2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

Jude
1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Originally Posted By: kland

* God would like people to accept Him.
* He gives them opportunities to learn about Him and accept Him.
* However, if they still reject Him, He punishes them even though it is too late to teach, correct, or lead them in the way they should go.
* God then takes great pleasure in His "strange act" of ..... (I'm not sure what you would put here)

Again, what is your definition of punishment and how does that fit in with what you think God does to those who reject Him?

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. The purpose of punishment is to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. It serves as a deterrent against evil. If sin kills sinners then the record would reflect God ceasing to keep them alive supernaturally and allowing sin to run its course. However, the Bible describes God as the One who will punish and destroy sinners in the lake of fire - not sin. Such punishment is neither cruel nor torture. It is justice.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/19/08 12:50 AM

I agree with kland's points. Indeed, his example of the dictator is right on point. Do what I say, and I will greatly reward you. But cross me on one small point, and you'll be sorry; you'll suffer my wrath. This is exactly the picture that Satan presents of God, and this is Satan's own character.

But God is not like this. The rewards God promises and the punishments He describes are not things which He arbitrarily gives to those who please Him or smites those who displease Him, but are the natural outworkings of the principles of His government vs. the government of Satan, which is to say self-sacrificing love vs. selfishness. The one leads to happiness and life; the other to misery and death. God doesn't cause these things to happens, but tells us of these things things so we can make responsible decisions.

Regarding the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, as I explained previously, if you are going to ask questions out of the blue which do not have to do with what we are discussing, it behooves you to explain how these things are relevant. Regarding God's being cruel, I will say that I don't believe is ever cruel, nor ever has been, nor can be; this is not in His character. God is not cruel. He is like Jesus Christ. When we've seen Him, we've seen the Father. Did Jesus ever do anything cruel?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/19/08 04:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Did Jesus ever do anything cruel?

No. Not even when He drove out the moneychangers, which was arbitrary, to use your definition. That is, driving them out was not the natural outworking of their sin. It was something Jesus arbitrarily imposed upon them.

There is something else Jesus never did while here - He never withdrew His protection and allowed evil angels to destroy sinners. Does mean God has never done it before?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/19/08 04:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: Indeed, God is holy, and whatever He does is holy - even if it doesn't make sense to us, even if it is a "strange act". Nothing He does is cruel.

1. Do you think God was being cruel when He drowned alive millions of men, women, and children in the Flood?

2. And, do you think God was being cruel when He burned alive hundreds of men, women, and children in the fires of Sodom?

T: Certainly God is holy, but if we see Him as acting completely contrary to Jesus Christ, doing things like burning people alive to "punish" them, we need to seriously question *our* ideas of God's character, not God's holiness.

It sounds like what is being suggested is that since God is holy, He can do whatever He wants, including cruelly punishing people. Who are we to question His burning people alive? After all, He is God; He can do whatever He wants.

I don't believe either that God is like this, nor that He desires that we view His activities in such a way (i.e., that He can do whatever He wants because He is God.) It's certainly true that God is powerful enough to do whatever He wants, but God does not desire a slavish obedience. He desires that His creatures have an intelligent appreciation of His character, the main feature of which is that God is love.

Quote:

Thus the arch-fiend clothes with his own attributes the Creator and Benefactor of mankind. Cruelty is Satanic. God is love... (GC 534)

Your comments here lead me to ask the two questions posted above (the ones you have yet to answer). My questions are pertinent and relevant to your comments about cruelty. Do you consider it cruel because God employed water and fire to drown and burn people alive?

Also, you seem willing to attribute the judgments of God to Satan. How is this different than what was said and done in the following account. You seem to be saying the same thing.

Quote:

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. {PP 404.4}

The Bible describes the punishment of the 250 men who sympathized with Korah and found fault with God: "And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." Numbers 16:35. Was God being cruel? Did He torture them alive?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/19/08 05:31 AM

Quote:

No, it wasn't. Only those with a guilty conscience left. Many didn't leave. This is actually a perfect illustration of the point I've been making. Jesus did not arbitrarily do something to force them out, but what happened was that "divinity flashed through humanity," and some were driven out by that.

Quote:

In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God. His very presence would make manifest to men their sin. Only as they were willing to be purged from sin could they enter into fellowship with Him. Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence. (DA 108)

This is the same principle.

Quote:

There is something else Jesus never did while here - He never withdrew His protection and allowed evil angels to destroy sinners. Does mean God has never done it before?

There's quite a number of illustrations of this. The best is probably Jerusalem:

Quote:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.(Matt.23:37, 38)

Quote:

As I've explained, if you are going to bring up questions out of the blue which seem to have nothing to do with the subject at hand, you should provide some motivations for these questions. Simply asserting that they are relevant is not an to the question as to why they are relevant. Why are they relevant?

Also, didn't I answer your questions? I said God has never been cruel.

Quote:

Also, you seem willing to attribute the judgments of God to Satan.

This reminds me of a bad marriage. When having a discussion about some issue, rather than dealing with the issue, the spouse brings up something from years ago. Please, let's stay on topic!

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 11/19/08 05:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Also, you seem willing to attribute the judgments of God to Satan. How is this different than what was said and done in the following account. You seem to be saying the same thing.

[quote]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. {PP 404.4}

this sounds like moses and aaron were accused of calling on satan to execute korah and company.

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 11/19/08 06:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

... I said God has never been cruel.

Quote:

I'm sad to hear you are a Sadducee, for with this view, you certainly must not believe in a resurrection from the dead.

Well, I'm sad to hear you're a Pharisee!

Happily, both Sadducees and Pharisees can repent and be saved!

Quote:

Sin killed Adam and Eve. Sin killed Thomas Paine. What is the difference?

If you have the first death in mind, this isn't the death of sin.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Tom

teresaq, how would the scenario you're suggesting tie into the EGW statement that the wicked will suffer proportionately to their sin?

unless you read it differently, thats what i believe it says and means.
The wicked are filled with the same hatred of God that inspires Satan; but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah. Their rage is kindled against Satan and those who have been his agents in deception. With the fury of demons they turn upon them, and there follows a scene of universal strife. {4SP 487.1}

Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

as for your question, i dont know what you are looking for.

if they suffer "proportionately" we have either a form of the eternally burning hell, or the eternally burning hell is a perversion of the truth.

on the other hand we have this verse which is most curious in the light of the one above.

Eze 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

does the fire come from heaven or from the midst of satan?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/21/08 07:41 AM

I was referring to this:

Quote:

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."(GC 673)

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 11/21/08 08:37 AM

hmmmm, are you thinking im saying that doesnt happen?

but in all honesty we have two seemingly conflicting statements. the wicked are murdering each other and the fire comes down and consumes them, yet, "Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds."(GC 673)"

im very aware of those statements, but the massacre at both comings, especially the third just hit me. so im waiting on the Lord to see how He reconciles them along with the verses i posted before.

the fire coming from above, yet coming from the midst of satan. interesting.

but perhaps you have already come to your own understanding.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/21/08 11:33 PM

I understand the suffering to be proportional because the more one has sinned, the more one suffers when the truth is revealed. From DA 108

Quote:

The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.

This brings out that the same thing that gives life to the righteous is what will slay the wicked. Since "light" is "revelation" and "glory" is "character," we can see that the "light of the glory of God" = "the revelation of God's character." That this interpretation is correct is born out by the next sentence:

Quote:

In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God.

The following brings out that God's glory is His character:

Quote:

So I don't think the fire which destroys the wicked is literal fire, since literal fire does not give life to the righteous.

The following also sheds light on how the wicked are destroyed:

Originally Posted By: Ellen White

God will not entrust the care of His precious flock to men whose mind and judgment have been weakened by former errors that they have cherished, such as so-called perfectionism [SEE APPENDIX.] and Spiritualism, and who, by their course while in these errors, have disgraced themselves and brought reproach upon the cause of truth. Although they may now feel free from error and competent to go forth and to teach this last message, God will not accept them. He will not entrust precious souls to their care; for their judgment was perverted while in error, and is now weakened. The great and holy One is a jealous God, and He will have holy men to carry His truth. The holy law spoken by God from Sinai [is] a part of Himself, and holy men who are its strict observers will alone honor Him by teaching it to others. {EW 101.2} [Early Writings (1882)]

It all comes back to a proper understanding of the covenants, the central theme for this thread. I suppose you will interpret this differently, Tom, for you have many times tried to express the view that God was NOT revealed properly in the Old Testament, but only through the incarnation of Christ. However, as you well know, Mike and I disagree with this at its core. I would, however, hope that you can see whereupon we base our understanding through ample support in the Bible and Mrs. White. The following quote is a good one.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White

From the creation the moral law was an essential part of God's divine plan, and was as unchangeable as Himself. The ceremonial law was to answer a particular purpose in Christ's plan for the salvation of the race. The typical system of sacrifices and offerings was established that through these services the sinner might discern the great offering, Christ. . . . The ceremonial law was glorious; it was the provision made by Jesus Christ in counsel with His Father, to aid in the salvation of the race. The whole arrangement of the typical system was founded on Christ. Adam saw Christ prefigured in the innocent beast suffering the penalty of his transgression of Jehovah's law. {FLB 106.3}
[The Faith I Live By (1958)]

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/22/08 12:32 PM

Quote:

Are you saying that you believe God's law is flexible?

I'm saying God is flexible. You wrote:

Quote:

It is not flexible. It is unchanging, just like God. It was this very inflexibility that demanded death as a punishment for every sinner...

This is implying, if not actually saying, that it is because of God's inflexibility that Christ had to die.

Quote:

Perhaps you and I will need to "agree to disagree." I could hardly disagree more, for I disagree both with your reasoning, and with the attitude it conveys. The last paragraph of yours here actually shocks me. That you could so flippantly refer to God's law using words like those! "...an arbitrary requirement of some law."

"Some" means "any." I wasn't using the term in a derogatory way. I was merely saying that the problem that man has is not due to some law (i.e., any law), but due to sin. I find it a bit ironic that you are shocked by a perception of how I refer to God's law, while presenting God in a way which appears to me to be contrary to that very law!

The law is a transcript of God's character. It describes the principles of love. It says, for example, "Thou shalt not lie." "Thou shalt not kill." It describes in words the life of Jesus Christ. I believe the law of God is a wonderful thing, and that not living according to its principles results in death, for the very reason that it is so wonderful. Where we disagree is that I believe that death comes not as an arbitrary enforcement of breaking it, but from breaking the underlying principles of self-sacrificing love, which is the "law of life" for the universe.

Quote:

You're misrepresenting what I said. Please quote something I actually said, as opposed to misrepresenting my words.

Quote:

However, as you well know, Mike and I disagree with this at its core.

So do I, and, again, this is not something I've said.

Quote:

I would, however, hope that you can see whereupon we base our understanding through ample support in the Bible and Mrs. White.

GC, I presented a very lengthy and well reasoned argument, and you didn't even attempt to address it. I presented detailed quotes, and explained each step. Basically our disagreement appears to me to come down to what is the problem that needs to be solved in order for a person to be saved. According to the Spirit of Prophecy, the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was "the revelation of God" in order to "set man right." "Whole purpose" means underlying everything that Christ did.

Here's a quote which deals specifically with how a person is saved:

Quote:

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8. (DA 175)

Now there is no better way of honoring the heart than to have it written in one's heart. How do we have the law written in the heart? By beholding the love of God revealed in Christ.

Quote:

Belief in the propitiation for sin enables fallen man to love God with his whole heart and his neighbor as himself. (COL 378)

As we behold the self-sacrificing love revealed in the sacrifice of Christ, that love encourages us to respond in kind, to give ourselves for the One who gave Himself for us.

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 11/22/08 03:54 PM

Tom,

Now you are beginning to say things in a way I can agree with. However, we still differ somewhat. Perhaps I have misunderstood your position from the discussions we had about a month or more ago, and to be honest, I may have forgotten the finer points of it.

Perhaps we each see a different "differing point." What I see is you saying this:

Originally Posted By: Tom

Where we disagree is that I believe that death comes not as an arbitrary enforcement of breaking it, but from breaking the underlying principles of self-sacrificing love, which is the "law of life" for the universe.

I added the numbers here. She says 7 times(!) in this one paragraph that God is not responsible for their deaths, but that the wicked themselves are.

Here's another place she makes this point:

Quote:

The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God. (GC 543)

Here's another place:

Quote:

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.(GC 36)

Quote:

No person in their right mind will be saying--"I want to die! I'm going to kill myself so that I can never live again!"

If their choice is to live with God, and people who love Him and His principles, their choice is to die. The statement in GC 543 brings this out. Here's some more of the context:

Quote:

"Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them... They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them."

This is very clear. Their choice is "voluntary with themselves." It's not forced upon them, but chosen voluntarily by them.

GC, it doesn't seem to me that you have considered the arguments I've presented. I've pointed out several times that she wrote that had God "left" Satan and his followers to reap that which they had sown, it would not have appeared that death is the inevitable result of sin. If things are as you are suggesting, she could not have written this. This should be easy to see. If the death of the wicked is due to God's own actions, as opposed to their own choice, then God could not have "left" Satan to perish.

The following two things cannot both be true:

1.God causes the wicked to die.
2.God leaves the wicked to reap the consequences of their own choice, which is death, the inevitable result of sin.

Either God causes the wicked to die, or He leaves them to die. it can't be both.

Quote:

If you think about it, for the "sin" to be what destroys the people...all by itself without any help from God...why are there so many sinners today? Why have we not already "self-destructed?"

Do you not think that sin has the power to destroy? The reason sinners do not die today is because of the grace of God! Where sin does abound, the grace of God does much more abound. If not for the grace of God, all would be dead. "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life" (DA 660).

Quote:

If students gave themselves their own grades, they'd all receive straight A's I'm sure.

This doesn't matter. The wicked could give themselves straight A's, and the following would still be true:

Quote:

They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them.

This is the problem! The wicked hate God, and the principles of His government, which is self-sacrificing love. They don't want to live forever with God, or even for a moment with Him. They want to flee from Him! Whether or not they receive straight A's, this is still the case!

Please consider the points EGW makes in DA 21, DA 22. The law of life of the universe is self-sacrificing love. Selfishness can only result in death. This should be very easy to see. How could selfishness possibly sustain life?

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 11/23/08 03:56 PM

Tom,

I have read the inspired statements you present. They are all good statements, which I happen to agree with fully. I just don't happen to have interpreted them as you have.

Originally Posted By: Tom

The following two things cannot both be true:

1.God causes the wicked to die.
2.God leaves the wicked to reap the consequences of their own choice, which is death, the inevitable result of sin.

Either God causes the wicked to die, or He leaves them to die. it can't be both.

But it can be and is both.

A criminal chooses whether or not to commit the crime. The criminal may do so in full cognition of the penalty. Continuing in it, however, the criminal chooses the penalty in exchange for the temporary pleasure of the moment. Once the time comes, and he is called to answer for his crime, the criminal recognizes the fairness of his reward. The judge brings down the sentence. The executioner does his duty. The criminal is NOT the executioner. But neither is the executioner responsible for the criminal's wrongs. The criminal has chosen the way of death. But the executioner brought the criminal his chosen reward.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/23/08 09:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: No. Not even when He drove out the moneychangers, which was arbitrary, to use your definition. That is, driving them out was not the natural outworking of their sin. It was something Jesus arbitrarily imposed upon them.

T: No, it wasn't. Only those with a guilty conscience left. Many didn't leave. This is actually a perfect illustration of the point I've been making. Jesus did not arbitrarily do something to force them out, but what happened was that "divinity flashed through humanity," and some were driven out by that.

Divinity flashing through humanity did not happen all time; otherwise, nobody could have endured His presence long enough to get a word in edgewise. The point is – their sin did not cause divinity to flash through humanity, nor did it cause Jesus to weave and crack a whip, or to flip over the tables, or to drive them out of the temple. Jesus could have ignored their sins and they would not have fled for their lives, the tables would not have flipped themselves over, the whip would not have weaved and cracked itself.

Quote:

M: There is something else Jesus never did while here - He never withdrew His protection and allowed evil angels to destroy sinners. Does mean God has never done it before?

T: There's quite a number of illustrations of this. The best is probably Jerusalem: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (Matt.23:37, 38)

This happened 40 years after Jesus returned to heaven. It didn’t while He was here. You’ve been arguing that Jesus revealed everything we can know about the character of God while here. So, the question still remains – While here Jesus never withdrew His protection and allowed evil angels to destroy sinners. Does this mean God has never done it before?

Quote:

M: Your comments here lead me to ask the two questions posted above (the ones you have yet to answer). My questions are pertinent and relevant to your comments about cruelty. Do you consider it cruel because God employed water and fire to drown and burn people alive?

T: As I've explained, if you are going to bring up questions out of the blue which seem to have nothing to do with the subject at hand, you should provide some motivations for these questions. Simply asserting that they are relevant is not an to the question as to why they are relevant. Why are they relevant? Also, didn't I answer your questions? I said God has never been cruel.

You said it would be cruel for God to burn someone alive. Therefore, I asked the following two questions:

1. Do you think God was being cruel when He drowned alive millions of men, women, and children in the Flood?

2. And, do you think God was being cruel when He burned alive hundreds of men, women, and children in the fires of Sodom?

These questions are relevant in that they speak to your definition of cruelty. How do you define cruelty? How do you define punishment? Can God do things that would be cruel and wrong for us to do? Answering the two questions above would help me understand you comments about cruelty. The following passage sheds light on these questions:

“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. {LDE 241.2}

Quote:

M: Also, you seem willing to attribute the judgments of God to Satan. How is this different than what was said and done in the following account. These guys attributed the judgments of God to Satan. They accused Moses and Aaron of using the power of Satan to kill Korah and his band. You seem to be saying the same thing. That is, you seem to be saying it is Satan, not God, who destroys sinners.

"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. {PP 404.4}

The Bible describes the punishment of the 250 men who sympathized with Korah and found fault with God: "And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." Numbers 16:35. Was God being cruel? Did He torture them alive?

T: This reminds me of a bad marriage. When having a discussion about some issue, rather than dealing with the issue, the spouse brings up something from years ago. Please, let's stay on topic!

I’m not sure why you feel bringing up unresolved issues is a sign of a bad marriage or a sign of bad communication, but from what I read and studied in the Bible and the SOP people cannot move onward and upward until they resolve and overcome past problems and mistakes. The reason they keep resurfacing is because they haven’t been properly dealt with. In this case, you keep promising you will explain why these stories in the Bible are interpreted in ways that totally misrepresent the character of God. So far you haven’t fulfilled your promise.

Again, you say God has never been cruel, that He has never burned anyone alive. And yet I’ve posted a story where God burned 250 people alive because they attributed the judgments of God to Satan. Was God being cruel in this case?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/23/08 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: teresaq

M: Also, you seem willing to attribute the judgments of God to Satan. How is this different than what was said and done in the following account. You seem to be saying the same thing.

Quote:

Teresaq: this sounds like moses and aaron were accused of calling on satan to execute korah and company.

They were accused of causing the death of good and holy men through the power of the evil one. They dared to attribute the judgments of God to Satan. For this reason God burned them alive. The point is - God burned them alive, not Satan. Do you agree? Or, do you believe, as Tom seems to believe, that Satan is the one who caused them to be burned alive?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/23/08 10:21 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

K: Would you be bringing up the flood as saying that what God did during the flood is the same as what God will ultimately do to those who reject him?

M: Yes. The same is true of Sodom. In fact, the Bible states it quite nicely, as usual: “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. . . .”

K: It does sound like if we understand the first death of the one, we can understand the second death of the other? Who were saved on the ark? Were sinners allowed on the ark? Why were those who didn't get on the ark lost? Was it because they couldn't have got on it?

Were all those on the ark righteous? Did their state of sinfulness have anything to do with them dying the first death or not? Was God, through Noah's preaching, attempting to save all who would come onto the ark, sinner or not? Could the coming flood not be affected by whether they got on or stayed off? If they got on the ark and God would save them in spite of their sin, would you call that being cruel when they chose not to heed the warnings of escaping the coming flood?

The Bible compares the end time punishment and destruction of the wicked to the punishment and destruction of the antediluvians and the sodomites. In so doing, I believe we are to conclude the same principles and dynamics apply. Those who refused to heed the final warning perished.

Quote:

The flood. The question is – What caused the flood that killed millions of sinners? And why? Did their sins trigger the forces of nature? Or, did God simply stop holding back the impending forces of nature? Or, did God step aside and allow Satan to employ the forces of nature? Or, did God employ the forces of nature? I believe the latter is true. What do you believe?

Quote:

M: God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

K: But you said before: “Yes, He is pleased law and justice are served and satisfied, but not pleased sinners neglect heaven-sent opportunities for learning the way of peace and righteousness, not pleased they reject Jesus.”

If law and justice result in the death of the wicked, and He is pleased law and justice are served, wouldn't it follow that He is pleased in the result of the death of the wicked?

Yes, He will be pleased with the results of their death. Again, He will not be pleased they chose to neglect or reject Jesus. Nor will He take pleasure in watching them suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. Do you agree?

Quote:

K: I hear you saying –

* God would like people to accept Him.
* He gives them opportunities to learn about Him and accept Him.
* However, if they still reject Him, He punishes them even though it is too late to teach, correct, or lead them in the way they should go.
* God then takes great pleasure in His "strange act" of ..... (I'm not sure what you would put here)

M: Again, what is your definition of punishment and how does that fit in with what you think God does to those who reject Him? God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. The purpose of punishment is to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. It serves as a deterrent against evil. If sin kills sinners then the record would reflect God ceasing to keep them alive supernaturally and allowing sin to run its course. However, the Bible describes God as the One who will punish and destroy sinners in the lake of fire - not sin. Such punishment is neither cruel nor torture. It is justice.

K: Sounds like the dictator mentality of there really being no choice.

What do you mean? Are you implying God is a dictator if He doesn’t give the wicked a choice in how they are punished and destroyed?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/25/08 05:45 AM

Quote:

T:The following two things cannot both be true:

1.God causes the wicked to die.
2.God leaves the wicked to reap the consequences of their own choice, which is death, the inevitable result of sin.

Either God causes the wicked to die, or He leaves them to die. it can't be both.

GC:But it can be and is both.

A criminal chooses whether or not to commit the crime. The criminal may do so in full cognition of the penalty. Continuing in it, however, the criminal chooses the penalty in exchange for the temporary pleasure of the moment. Once the time comes, and he is called to answer for his crime, the criminal recognizes the fairness of his reward. The judge brings down the sentence. The executioner does his duty. The criminal is NOT the executioner. But neither is the executioner responsible for the criminal's wrongs. The criminal has chosen the way of death. But the executioner brought the criminal his chosen reward.

If the reason that someone dies is because you execute them, you could hardly say you were "leaving" the person to reap the consequences of his choice, sin you are the one responsible for his death!

Ellen White's point, made 7 times in the paragraph cited, is that God was *not* responsible for the death of the wicked, but that the wicked were. She explained that death is "the inevitable result of sin." If the inevitable result of sin is death, it would hardly be necessary for God to impose His power upon them to kill them.

Quote:

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (GC 36)

It's not a case of both, but of one instead of the other. That is, instead of God's executing the wicked ("God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression") the wicked "reap that which they have sown." This is something that happens when God "leaves" the rejectors of His mercy to themselves.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/25/08 06:04 AM

Quote:

The whip was for the animals, not the people. Jesus did not drive the money-changers out with a whip. They were compelled to leave by a guilty conscience.

Quote:

This happened 40 years after Jesus returned to heaven. It didn’t while He was here.

I've addressed this. Jesus spoke in the present tense in Matt. 23:37, 38, so this is a legitimate example of the principle.

Quote:

You’ve been arguing that Jesus revealed everything we can know about the character of God while here.

Actually it was Ellen White who said this. That's where I got the idea from!

Quote:

All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. (8T 286)

Quote:

So, the question still remains – While here Jesus never withdrew His protection and allowed evil angels to destroy sinners. Does this mean God has never done it before?

I've addressed the question, so it doesn't remain. Regarding your question in the last sentence here, I'm not following your reasoning. What is "this"? Why would "this" imply God had never done "it" before?

Quote:

Regarding the definition of "cruelty," from Webster's:

Quote:

causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain

This is actually the definition of "cruel." "Cruelty" is defined as basically "being cruel."

Regarding your question if I believe God to be cruel, no, I don't. Regarding the incidents you cite, you know I don't perceive what happened the same way you do. That is, you perceive these things as God's doing certain things to the people in order to inflict them with pain, suffering and death. I see what happened in terms of what EGW outlined in GC 36, and throughout the chapter "The Destruction of Jerusalem."

Regarding my not presenting the explanation you requested, I've recently moved, and am at a client side, with the explanation on my work computer, so I'm not often able to deal with these matters where I have access to the information I was trying to find. I'm sorry you had to wait. The next post has the explanation.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/25/08 06:08 AM

The Ever-Loving, Saving Father

When the Israelites took the sword, thus rejecting God's way in favour of their own, the Lord was faced with several possible courses.

Firstly, He could have simply abandoned them to their own devices. This would have been perfectly just and righteous on His part, though it would have been justice without mercy. The result would have been the speedy disappearance of the household of Israel from the face of the earth. Their enemies were multitudinous, highly skilled, and well equipped in the business of war. Satan desired nothing so much as the extermination of Israel and he would have quickly seized upon the opportunity.
Secondly, God had the physical power to force the Israelites to continue in His way but He could not do this from the moral point of view. He had given them, along with the remainder of humanity, the freedom to choose. Therefore, under no circumstances, would He attempt to insist on His way in preference to theirs. It was for them to choose how it would be, and when they made that choice God could do nothing except respect it, which He did.

Thirdly, God could have simply ignored the sin, pretended that it did not exist. To do this would be to condone it and this God cannot do.

These three are obvious alternatives, but there is another possibility which is normally overlooked. Herein, the Lord recognizes that He has failed to save them from taking the wrong turning, and that, therefore, the work calculated to save them from that is now valueless. Because they have not yet tasted the bitter experience of the consequences of their apostasy, they are not disposed to come back. But they have not gone beyond the possibility of restoration. So God, in His infinite love, will not abandon them and thus cut off their opportunity to rectify their misdemeanors.

If no saving help is provided to draw them back from going into the worst effects of their choice, then they would not survive long enough to ever return to God. Therefore, the Lord works to save them from those evil results both to make their sufferings as mild as possible, and to extend the time in which they may learn and repent. It is because this aspect of God's working has not been understood that He has been so seriously misjudged in the Old Testament.

The following illustration will serve to clarify these alternatives and to identify the divine choice among them.
Picture a smallish town located in an area where wild animals, such as bear, deer, mountain sheep, and various big cats abounded. As is to be expected, the majority of men in the town were keen hunters never missing the opportunity to take their guns out and to track down the game.

But one man was different. He had the love of God in his heart and to kill the beautiful dwellers in the forests and mountains was contrary to his nature. So he was never seen in company with the men trailing off to seek their adventures in the blood of others. For their part, they were troubled by this odd man out and never lost an occasion to persuade him, if possible, to join them. At one time, they even bought him a splendid hunting rifle for his birthday. With Christian graciousness, he gently declined the gift. This was naturally resented, causing those men to increase the pressure on him, but despite this, year after year, there was no change in him. The only equipment with which he would hunt was a good camera.

This man had a fine son whom he was most anxious to protect from the influence of the hunters around. He worked untiringly to instil into him the same love of the wildlife which he possessed, and was gratified to see that he was having good success in this direction. Thus the father was working to have the boy do things his way as distinct from the hunters' way.
The father did not take away the boy's freedom of choice. When he eventually reached later youth, he became answerable for himself and was no longer under the direct control and discipline of his father. He received an invitation to spend some weeks away from home and, eager to see new country, accepted the kindly offer. This was a clever plot by the huntsmen, who sent their sons along to invite the boy, once he was away from the father's direct influence, to go hunting with them. They urged him to try it just once to see how he liked it. Feeling that no harm would be done by an on-the-spot personal appraisal of the hunting business, he went along.
His first reaction was unfavourable but, something about the challenge, thrill, and excitement, drew him back and soon he was an enthusiastic devotee. He went to the sports store, selected a beautifully engineered weapon, and in due time returned with it to his dismayed father. He had exercised his choice and now the father was confronted with a situation which required a response. How would he now relate himself to this turn of events? Clearly the young man had instituted in his life a course contrary to the ways of his father and of God.
For the father, as for God, the choice lay between several alternatives.

The first option was to disown the son, forbidding his entrance to the home and requiring he go his own separate way. The justification for this would have been the certainty that the principles of father and son could never harmonize.
Another course would have called for the use of force to coerce the lad's surrender to his father's wishes and ways. This was not the answer for two reasons. Firstly the youth had achieved the age of independence, so it would have been impossible for the father to achieve the desired result anyway. But, secondly, it was not in this father's nature any more than it is in the character of God, to use force. To them, the only acceptable service is that which springs from an educated heart of love.

A third alternative was to quietly ignore the change, pretend that the rifle had never been brought into the home, and act as if all were well when, in fact, it was not. Again, this was no way out, for sin cannot be ignored. Neither love nor justice will permit it. Iniquity demands attention. A response to it will always be forthcoming whether it be the saving outreach of love or the vindictive reaction of destructive hate.
Having considered and rejected each of these possibilities, what would have been left for this godly man to do? What would God do in the same situation?

Firstly, the older man recognized that his son had placed himself, other people, domestic livestock, and wild animals, in a position of great danger. Being an inexperienced and untrained rifleman, he did not understand the necessity of looking beyond the target to ensure that there were no buildings, people, or farm animals in the line of fire. He needed to understand how to carry the weapon so that in climbing through fences, for instance, he did not, as so many have done, shoot himself or his friends. He must be made aware of the awful potential of the ricochet, when a bullet, glancing from rock or tree, will embed itself in a target far to the right or left of the original sighting. He must come close enough to the game to eliminate the possibility of only wounding the animal which would then drag itself away to suffer a lingering death. These and others things he could be taught in order to save himself and others from the worst effects of what he had chosen.

While the father could no longer save the youth from taking the gun, he could, if permitted, provide the instruction needed to save him from these serious consequences. Even the wild animals would benefit from this saving ministry, for, while they could not be saved from death, they could be delivered from a painful and lingering one.

As the response of God and those who walk with Him will always be the outreach of saving love, there is only one course among those suggested above that the Lord or this father would follow. God is by nature a saviour. So too was the father pictured in this illustration. When God is frustrated from saving people in one area, He will still exercise His saving power in whatever possibilities remain. Thus, when the boy's father found that his long pursued objectives of saving the youth from taking up weapons had failed, he still recognized that there was much he could do to save the boy from the worst effects of what he had chosen.

So, sadly, but with tender dignity the father drew his son aside and spoke with him. He expressed disappointment that the younger man had chosen to go the way he had, but assured him that he would respect his decision fully. He gently suggested that there were dangers associated with the use of such a weapon, from which perils he could only be safeguarded by receiving and obeying a number of specific precautions. The father intimated that he was more than willing to carefully instruct the son in these.

Seemingly this father is instructing the youth to be a hunter, whereas, in fact, he is advising the lad, who has elected to be a killer against the father’s wishes, how to be merciful and safe in the use of the gun.

The son, relieved that his parent was not launching against him a fiery denunciation of his ways, no longer braced himself to resist such pressure. Instead he expressed his willingness to learn. By so doing he exhibited the strange quirk of human behaviour which gives men an unwillingness to obey God where the higher levels of faith are concerned, but permits them to follow His counsel at lesser levels. Israel, for instance, was not prepared to trust God fully by leaving the sword alone, but they accepted and followed His counsels regarding the restrictions designed to minimize its evils. In like manner, the son who had abandoned his father's principles regarding the total rejection of firearms, was prepared to respect his counsels in the use of them.

The father introduced the training session by emphasizing that nothing he was about to do or say indicated that he had changed in any way, even though it could be interpreted that way.
God, who has been placed in the same position by the determination of His children to take up weapons of destruction, has likewise solemnly warned that His effort to save them from the worst effects of what they have chosen does not indicate any change in Him, even though His actions could and have been interpreted otherwise.

"I am the Lord, I change not;" "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever;" "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8; James 1:17.

Despite the fact that men know that before sin entered God never destroyed, and despite these solemn declarations from God that no change has ever occurred in Him, men still look on His everlasting efforts to save and interpret them as being the actions of one who has become like man himself. The father in our story did not have to change his ways in order to instruct the son how to be a kind killer, neither did God have to change His ways to save Israel from being cruel users of the sword. Neither of them took life. They were only bent on saving it, or, if that were no longer possible, to save it from as much suffering as possible.

Now suppose that one of the villagers, the man who had most ardently sought to convert the father, had happened to come down the lane as this session was in progress. From a distance too great to hear all that has been said, he beheld the father instructing the son in the use of firearms.

What assumptions will this man make? What conclusions will he draw?

He never was possessed of the spirit of the father and therefore, could never understand it. Accordingly, there was no possibility of his correctly assessing what the father was doing. Instead, he would have interpreted what he saw as sure proof that the father had changed.

The onlooker would have lost no time in returning to his hunting companions to announce the father's conversion. He would have told them that he was now one of them—a gunman. He would have offered as proof to his incredulous listeners, what he had seen of the father actually instructing the boy in gun-handling. The evidence he offered was factually true, for this is exactly what he had seen the father doing, but the conclusions drawn from those evidences were the opposite from the truth.

Even as that father was misjudged, so God has likewise been.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/25/08 09:47 PM

Tom, the "how to be a kind killer" illustration (Behold Your God) comes short in one important way - It is not a sin to kill enemy nations as an act of war. God commanded the COI to dispossess the Canaanites, to utterly kill men, women, and children. Listen:

Numbers
21:2 And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.
21:3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

Deuteronomy
3:1 Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei.
3:2 And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.
3:3 So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.
3:4 And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
3:5 All these cities [were] fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many.
3:6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
3:7 But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves.

Deuteronomy
7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:
7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
7:6 For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/25/08 09:57 PM

Tom, I do not see how the "kind killer" illustration explains why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Nor do I see how GC 36 explains it.

By the way, is this you in the following link?

http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/forum/v...w=5&page=10

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/25/08 11:31 PM

I think we're at the agree to disagree point here, MM. I can't do better than the explanation here. Regarding the link, that should be me, yes.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 11/26/08 12:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Those who refused to heed the final warning perished.

Quote:

K: Who or what came to take them all away?

Do you deny the possibility of either God stop holding back, or allowing Satan to take over?

In the beginning, water covered the face of the earth. Through a supernatural act, God caused the dry land to appear. By stopping that supernatural act, the waters would come back. While He could cause a second supernatural act to counteract the first supernatural act, allowing entropy to happen would both make more sense and be supportive of God's character.

Quote:

Yes, I think so, perhaps a wording conflict between us on that.

Quote:

K: Sounds like the dictator mentality of there really being no choice.

What do you mean? Are you implying God is a dictator if He doesn’t give the wicked a choice in how they are punished and destroyed?

I'm implying that your views of God and a dictator is no different.

God kills people who go against Him.
Hitler kills people who go against him.

God kills people because He is just.
Hitler kills people because he is just. (His followers believed it)

God kills people for the greater good.
Hitler kills people for the greater good. (To move the human race to a higher level)

Imagine a being from another part of the universe coming late to the showdown. He arrives and walks along the wall looking over the side seeing men, women, and children being burned alive. The only way he could tell if it was God doing it or just the continuing actions of Hitler would be that Hitler couldn't keep them alive very long whereas God supernaturally prolongs their suffering to satisfy some unkown purpose for punishment.

People during Hitler's day didn't really have a choice. They followed him or died. If God does the same, we don't really have a choice. Choice of death or shutup and putup is not a choice.

Quote:

God kills.
Jesus didn't.
Jesus came to earth to represent God.
Is that a conflict between God and Jesus?

Perhaps an investigation of the first time God gave the instruction to kill enemy nations is in order. When was that?
Israel means a prince of God, ruling as God. The nation was named after Jacob. If the nation ruled as Jacob did, maybe you can find where Jacob killed people.

Mountain Man, why are you opposed to a kind God? Could God be kind, meaning that He does not actively kill people?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/26/08 05:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

I think we're at the agree to disagree point here, MM. I can't do better than the explanation here. Regarding the link, that should be me, yes.

If you could quote passages from the Bible where God says something like - "I commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death because of the hardness of Moses' heart. Circumstances forced Me to act contrary to My character." - then I would be more willing to buy into your idea. But nowhere does God say anything like it.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 11/26/08 05:50 AM

i liked the eth3.org, 7 stages of christian maturity. that seemed to really make sense for me. plus i liked the 7th stage, it seemed to be the goal the bible and egw have been calling us to.

i liked your story, too, tom.

on this side of eternity, and at this point in time, it seems hard to know for sure exactly how, what and why everything happened in the ot. but the few things i do understand give me confidence that there was no vengeful, arbitrariness in our God.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/26/08 05:52 AM

Quote:

There looks to be some confusion here. The problem was not the hardness of Moses' heart, but of the people. God never acted contrary to His character -- that's been my whole point!!! If God acted as you have been suggesting, *then* He would be acting contrary to His character. I've been saying God's actions have always been consistent with what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and teachings, that all that we can or need to know about God was revealed by these.

If you think I should present you something which says, "circumstances forced me to act contrary to My character," then you haven't heard what I've been saying, because this is not remotely what I've been saying. God always acts in harmony with His character. This is what I've been saying.

It looks to me like we're not communicating. If the thing I included about the ever-loving father doesn't make sense to you, I think, as I said before, perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. It just looks to me like you haven't understood the points the story was making. I don't know what else to say. I can't explain it more clearly than the story does.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/26/08 05:53 AM

Originally Posted By: kland

Do you deny the possibility of either God stop holding back, or allowing Satan to take over?

Please post inspired passages which say so. Thank you.

Originally Posted By: kland

God kills people who go against Him.
Hitler kills people who go against him.

Jack Kevorkian kills people by withdrawing life support.
God kills people by withdrawing the breath of life.

Originally Posted By: kland

Mountain Man, why are you opposed to a kind God? Could God be kind, meaning that He does not actively kill people?

"Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor. {PP 420.2} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary. {GC 539.3}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/26/08 05:58 AM

Quote:

i liked the eth3.org, 7 stages of christian maturity. that seemed to really make sense for me. plus i liked the 7th stage, it seemed to be the goal the bible and egw have been calling us to.

i liked your story, too, tom.

on this side of eternity, and at this point in time, it seems hard to know for sure exactly how, what and why everything happened in the ot. but the few things i do understand give me confidence that there was no vengeful, arbitrariness in our God.

Glad to here it! I loved this story when I first read it because it gave a clear and understandable explanation to a difficult concept. If we keep in mind two principles, that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and the principle illustrated by the story, I think many (maybe all) of the OT stories can be understood in a way that has God acting just like we would expect given the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Satan is so subtle in his arguments that even holy angels, who lived in the very presence of God, were not clear about things until the cross, so it's no wonder that sinful human beings like us have difficulties understanding the OT.

Quote:

but the few things i do understand give me confidence that there was no vengeful, arbitrariness in our God.

Amen! This is a great point to hang on to. That is, we may not be able to understand or explain every possible question or incident, but that needn't shake our confidence in regards to what God's character is like. We can be completely assured that God has always acted just like how Jesus Christ acted while He lived among us, even if at times it may not appear that way.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 11/26/08 06:01 AM

its interesting, if we step back and think about it, that the israelites were not afraid of God, sinai and all!!

but, they were afraid that the glory shining from moses face would kill them.

makes one think and wonder!

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Covenants - 11/26/08 07:01 AM

And were they really not afraid at Sinai, Teresa?

Originally Posted By: The Holy Bible

And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled. (Exodus 19:16, KJV)

And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. (Exodus 20:18, KJV)

And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. (Exodus 20:19, KJV)

And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. (Exodus 20:20, KJV)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 11/26/08 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: kland

Do you deny the possibility of either God stop holding back, or allowing Satan to take over?

Please post inspired passages which say so. Thank you.

Tom gave you numerous passages. I gave you Genesis 1.
Do you intend to say that if you don't see a passage which you interpret to say there's such a possibility, you deny that the possibility exists?

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kland

God kills people who go against Him.
Hitler kills people who go against him.

Jack Kevorkian kills people by withdrawing life support.
God kills people by withdrawing the breath of life.

Is that withdrawing or witholding?
Is either related to what you say God is going to actively do to sinners?

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kland

Mountain Man, why are you opposed to a kind God? Could God be kind, meaning that He does not actively kill people?

By the way, I don't see where you defined how "punishment" at the second death is going to help teach, correct, or instruct me. You hinted at that you do not know. Again, Tom has given numerous passages which speak contrary to your view. How do you decide which one to go with?

As I said initially, it is from each of our presumed premises. I am asking, why do you choose a presumed premise which precludes a loving and kind God?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/26/08 10:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Quote:

You seem to think the Jews were anxious to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. But the opposite is true. They weren't sure what to do, so they sent Moses to ask God. If what you believe about justice and judgment is true, why, then, didn't God take the time and opportunity to demonstrate the truth? Instead, He, according to you, stooped to cater to their perverted sense of justice and judgment. What kind of parent would do such a thing?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/26/08 10:51 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

K: Who or what came to take them all away?

M: The flood. The question is – What caused the flood that killed millions of sinners? And why? Did their sins trigger the forces of nature? Or, did God simply stop holding back the impending forces of nature? Or, did God step aside and allow Satan to employ the forces of nature? Or, did God employ the forces of nature? I believe the latter is true. What do you believe?

K: Do you deny the possibility of either God stop holding back, or allowing Satan to take over?

M: Please post inspired passages which say so. Thank you.

K: Tom gave you numerous passages. I gave you Genesis 1.
Do you intend to say that if you don't see a passage which you interpret to say there's such a possibility, you deny that the possibility exists?

Where in Genesis 1 does it say God was unnaturally or supernaturally preventing the forces of nature from imploding upon the planet and drowning people?

Originally Posted By: kland

K: God kills people who go against Him. Hitler kills people who go against him.

M: Jack Kevorkian kills people by withdrawing life support. God kills people by withdrawing the breath of life.

K: Is that withdrawing or witholding? Is either related to what you say God is going to actively do to sinners?

1) Some people believe God kills people by withdrawing their breath of life. 2) Others believe God withdraws His protection and permits evil angels to kill them. I believe God does all of the above plus 3) He employs the forces of nature to kill people, and 4) He commands holy angels to kill people.

Originally Posted By: kland

K: Mountain Man, why are you opposed to a kind God? Could God be kind, meaning that He does not actively kill people?

M: "Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor. {PP 420.2} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary. {GC 539.3}

K: By the way, I don't see where you defined how "punishment" at the second death is going to help teach, correct, or instruct me. You hinted at that you do not know. Again, Tom has given numerous passages which speak contrary to your view. How do you decide which one to go with?

As I said initially, it is from each of our presumed premises. I am asking, why do you choose a presumed premise which precludes a loving and kind God?

Tom has proven nothing but his own opinion. He has not proven the truth. The punishment and destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire does not serve to educate or enlighten the wicked. Instead, it serves to educate and enlighten righteous FMAs throughout God's far flung Universe.

Also, it is unfair of you to characterize my views about the wrath of God as unloving and unkind. It is critical and judgmental - attributes I'm sure you loathe. Please refrain from saying things that are unloving and unkind. Thank you.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/27/08 03:24 AM

Quote:

I think the story of the ever-loving father provides the necessary ingredients to correctly understanding God's actions here. If you don't see this, I think we'll have to "agree to disagree."

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/27/08 03:43 AM

Quote:

Where in Genesis 1 does it say God was unnaturally or supernaturally preventing the forces of nature from imploding upon the planet and drowning people?

kland pointed out that God had to do something in order to make the land separate from the waters. Thus there's an implication that the natural order of things is that water be pre-eminent, not land. Thus in order for the Flood to occur, all that would be necessary would be for God to stop doing what He did to make the land separate from the waters, and things would start to revert back to where they originated from.

Quote:

K: By the way, I don't see where you defined how "punishment" at the second death is going to help teach, correct, or instruct me. You hinted at that you do not know. Again, Tom has given numerous passages which speak contrary to your view. How do you decide which one to go with?

k:As I said initially, it is from each of our presumed premises. I am asking, why do you choose a presumed premise which precludes a loving and kind God?

M:Tom has proven nothing but his own opinion. He has not proven the truth.

You are stating here that I have proven my own opinion. If I have proven my opinion, then there are two possibilities.

1.My opinion is the truth.
2.My opinion is contrary to the truth.

Since I have proven my opinion, if 1 is the case, I *have* proven the truth. If 2 is the case, then the truth is false, because it differs from my opinion, which I have proven. Since 2 is obviously not the case, 1. must be the case, and so the conclusion must be that I *have* proven the truth.

Quote:

The punishment and destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire does not serve to educate or enlighten the wicked. Instead, it serves to educate and enlighten righteous FMAs throughout God's far flung Universe.

kland has been asking you how it does this.

Quote:

Also, it is unfair of you to characterize my views about the wrath of God as unloving and unkind. It is critical and judgmental - attributes I'm sure you loathe. Please refrain from saying things that are unloving and unkind. Thank you.

MM, kland asked you a question. Here's the question:

Quote:

Why do you choose a presumed premise which precludes a loving and kind God?

He did not characterize your views as unloving and unkind. He asked you why you would choose a presumed premise which precludes a loving and kind God.

You asked me the following:

Quote:

In this question you have made the implicit assumption that my view would have God acting contrary to His character because He was forced to do so by circumstances. This is an unwarranted assumption from my point of view, so I explained why. kland's question is no more unreasonable than yours. You should, IMO, answer his question as I did yours, which is to show why, from your point of view, what you perceive to be implicit assumptions of his question are incorrect.

Specifically, you could either argue that you are not choosing the presumed premise kland suggests you choosing, or you could argue that such a premise does not preclude a loving and kind God.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/27/08 08:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: You seem to think the Jews were anxious to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. But the opposite is true. They weren't sure what to do, so they sent Moses to ask God. If what you believe about justice and judgment is true, why, then, didn't God take the time and opportunity to demonstrate the truth? Instead, He, according to you, stooped to cater to their perverted sense of justice and judgment. What kind of parent would do such a thing?

T: I think the story of the ever-loving father provides the necessary ingredients to correctly understanding God's actions here. If you don't see this, I think we'll have to "agree to disagree."

Tom, who wrote that story? It's too bad you cannot cite an inspired passage that unequivocably substantiates your theory. Instead, you post unrelated passages and glean principles you insist applies to every other story in the Bible. Again, it's too bad you cannot post inspired pasages to confirm your theory.

Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does it say God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer because that's what the sin hardened Jews were expecting. And yet you insist this is the case. In fact, the opposite is true. The Jews didn't know what to do. They weren't eager to kill them. Please, Tom, just post one inspired quote which plainly says this is why God commanded Moses to kill those two guys.

Also, please explain why a loving God would consent to command Moses to kill two people. Why would He give in to pressure like that? The Jews weren't even sure wht to do? Why didn't God take advntage of their uncertainty and denonstrate the truth?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 11/27/08 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Please post inspired passages to support your theory. Thank you. Otherwise, it is just your opinion.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 11/27/08 10:52 PM

Quote:

Tom, who wrote that story? It's too bad you cannot cite an inspired passage that unequivocally substantiates your theory. Instead, you post unrelated passages and glean principles you insist applies to every other story in the Bible. Again, it's too bad you cannot post inspired passages to confirm your theory.

Please refer to the comment below which discusses how you are, IMO, going about this in the wrong way.

Quote:

Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does it say God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer because that's what the sin hardened Jews were expecting. And yet you insist this is the case.

MM, please quote something I've actually written. Where do I even state, let alone "insist" on what you alleging?

Quote:

In fact, the opposite is true. The Jews didn't know what to do. They weren't eager to kill them. Please, Tom, just post one inspired quote which plainly says this is why God commanded Moses to kill those two guys.

MM, you're going about this in the wrong way, IMO. You're looking at the Bible as if it were a code book, as if we were robots set to receive instructions. Rather than this, the Bible should be seen as a case history of how God has revealed Himself to man. You can't just grab isolated incidents and jump to conclusions and hope to get a right picture this way. The Bible as a whole should be considered, comparing line upon line.

Satan has misrepresented God's character. He has sought to represent God as severe and harsh. Religious people, especially, seem to buy into this picture. Jesus Christ came to reveal what God was really like. Until Jesus Christ came, God was misunderstood. It was to enlighten this misunderstanding that Jesus came. The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. Even holy angels were amazed by what they saw. They still are. Until Christ came, even they were confused by Satan and his claims. The OT had not been sufficient for them to clarify the issues. They needed the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion. (DA 235)

Now if even holy angels needed the revelation of Jesus Christ, why should we think we sinful humans didn't need it?

Quote:

Also, please explain why a loving God would consent to command Moses to kill two people. Why would He give in to pressure like that? The Jews weren't even sure what to do? Why didn't God take advntage of their uncertainty and denonstrate the truth?

The principles to answer your questions are in the story I cited. As I've been saying, I can't explain it better than that. If you can't understand the answer to your questions from that explanation, then, as I've been saying, we'll just have to "agree to disagree."

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/01/08 07:37 PM

Tom, the DA 758 quote you posted does not say the holy angels needed to behold Christ and Him crucified to clear up certain misunderstandings they had concerning the law and love of God.

Your "humane hunter" story does not explain why God commanded Moses to kill two sinners. Nor does it explain all the other stories where God commanded Jews to kill people. First of all, it is not a sin to hunt. Second, it does not violate the law to teach people how to hunt humanely.

Asking me to read your "humane hunter" story, to understand why God commanded Moses to kill those two guys, seems to imply that He taught the Jews how to kill sinners in the most humane manner.

The question is - Did God compromise to accommodate sin? In particular, did He teach the Jews how to humanely kill those two sinners? If so, why? Why didn't He teach them the truth instead, especially since they weren't sure what to do with them and they specifically asked God what would be the right thing to do?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/01/08 08:22 PM

Quote:

Tom, the DA 758 quote you posted does not say the holy angels needed to behold Christ and Him crucified to clear up certain misunderstandings they had concerning the law and love of God.

The quote points out that Christ's death was not just for us, but for the angels and unfallen worlds as well. Christ's death resolved the Great Controversy. The chapter goes into depth explaining this. There are other passages as well which point out that apart from the cross, the angels would be no more secure than they were before Lucifer rebelled.

Quote:

Your "humane hunter" story does not explain why God commanded Moses to kill two sinners.

Yes it does, but apparently you're not understanding how.

Quote:

Nor does it explain all the other stories where God commanded Jews to kill people. First of all, it is not a sin to hunt. Second, it does not violate the law to teach people how to hunt humanely.

It just looks like you're not getting the point.

Quote:

Asking me to read your "humane hunter" story, to understand why God commanded Moses to kill those two guys, seems to imply that He taught the Jews how to kill sinners in the most humane manner.

Yes, you're not getting it. I'm sorry about that.

Quote:

The question is - Did God compromise to accommodate sin? In particular, did He teach the Jews how to humanely kill those two sinners? If so, why? Why didn't He teach them the truth instead, especially since they weren't sure what to do with them and they specifically asked God what would be the right thing to do?

We're just going to have to skip this, I think.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/01/08 08:26 PM

MM, sorry I have to do this, but I do this as a demonstration. I believe you have unfairly accused me of something and I wish to demonstrate how the same could be said about you. I'm not saying that is right, nor am I say these are my views towards you. Just another example of a different presumed premise.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

I think Tom as articulately addressed this. What I'd like to ask is why did you employ that construct? You do not seem to be the overly sensitive type. Why you used this, I do not know; although I do have an opinion.

As far as saying things unloving and unkind goes, I took offense at some things you have said which I thought was a little rude. I think Tom gave good advice regarding how you could address my comments (Of course I would!

) -- either by arguing you are not taking the presumed premise or that such premise does not preclude a loving and kind God. I will attempt to take this advice in addressing support for my claim of you being critical, judgmental, unloving, unkind, and rude. I realize that if this is true, that in no way says your claims of likewise are not true. Neither does it give justification of others doing the same. I am only pointing out that while my intent was not to be unloving nor unkind to you, using the same measuring stick, one could conclude it about you. To disagree with someone is to be "critical and judgmental" of their views. Otherwise they would be in agreement. So, except for the following, all I saw was discussion of ideas.

Quote:

You are wrong, Tom, dead wrong. There is more I disagree with than what you say.

Quote:

Tom has proven nothing but his own opinion.

Quote:

Whatever. I've clearly addressed this question and you refuse to believe me. What more can I say to dissuade you from believing a lie?

Tom may be wrong. Tom may believe a lie. But the way you said it comes across that he was intentional misleading and that you know the truth and everyone else should see it clearly.

Could it be that your quote of:

Quote:

"God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law.

conflicts with what you have said, thus leading towards your claim of unfairness and your further statement:

Quote:

Do you see a problem that if God punishes the transgressors, but the punishment serves to educate the righteous (not sure what FMAs are), then the righteous must be the transgressors, or that perhaps you are saying that one person's punishment helps another? One person's torture is for another's benefit? Hitler said the same.
Do you have inspired passages which state the God's direct punishment of the wicked serves to educate and enlighten the righteous?

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kland

Do you deny the possibility of either God stop holding back, or allowing Satan to take over?

Please post inspired passages which say so. Thank you.

Did Adam and Eve kiss? Did they have sex? Please post inspired passages which say so. Do you see the absurdity of needing a direct quote for the possibility of anything to have happened?

Tom has an opinion. He has given passages to support it.
You have an opinion. You have given passages to support it.
I have an opinion that you have given more passages. In fact, direct questions you have answered with nothing but quotations. Like a "code book"?
I have asked, how does one decide. I have suggested it is from our own presumed premise. You have cried foul. You have yet to support that claim. Do you suggest, as implicated by your posts, that we should decide the truth based upon the number of passages supporting each opinion?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/01/08 08:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Quote:

However, if sin doesn't punish sinners, then the first death does not serve to satisfy law and justice.
The reason God must resurrect them is due to the fact the first death does not satisfy the demands of law and justice, namely, punishment "according to their works".
They will praise the justice of God. They will not find pleasure in the fact the wicked are being punished according to their sinfulness.

I don't believe anything needs said here.

Quote:

I do not believe God finds pleasure in punishing people. Circumstances forces Him to do it, but He is not willing that any should perish. Yes, He is pleased law and justice are served and satisfied, but not pleased sinners neglect heaven-sent opportunities for learning the way of peace and righteousness, not pleased they reject Jesus.

He is forced to execute the law, even though He does not wish to? Suppose someone received a speeding ticket. They go before the judge. The judge has mercy and cancels it. But yet, you say God cannot change some law which He is not happy about executing, and takes great pleasure in seeing that it is satisfied? Love - mercy. Not sure how to reconcile this.

Quote:

However, the Bible describes God as the One who will punish and destroy sinners in the lake of fire - not sin. Such punishment is neither cruel nor torture. It is justice.

And in what way could God act that could be considered cruel or torture? Just saying that God is holy and therefore nothing He does is cruel doesn't answer the question.

Quote:

Also, please explain why a loving God would consent to command Moses to kill two people.

Not sure if I missed something here, but it sounds like you saying that if God was loving, He wouldn't say to kill people. However since He did, He is not loving.

Since you think my views of your views are wrong, that you see God as not loving and kind, maybe you could state exactly what your views are of God. That is, since you did not answer my question, put your views into my question and then answer it. You do see your views are different than mine. I'm asking, why do you choose a presumed premise which precludes a fill in your view of God here God rather than my view of God who lets the flood waters come back, who is always consistent, never taking emergency measures, lets the wicked reap their results, who never directly kills them....

From what I've seen, the reason is because you do not find a specific direct quote which you interpret that way. Is that the reason?

Posted By: jibb444

Re: The Covenants - 12/01/08 08:44 PM

Excuse me for breaking in here but I have read through this thread and it appears that some of you believe that God doesn't punish sinners. How could that possibly be true? Would God be just if everyone no matter to what degree they sinned were punished exactly the same. That would not only be unjust to the sinners but likewise to the saved. Could you imagine going to court for a speeding ticket and getting the same punishment as someone who committed murder? God is love because he sent his son to die for our sins so that we may be saved but he is also just which by definition is fair wether your lost or saved.

just   
–adjective 1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.
6. in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right: just proportions.
7. (esp. in Biblical use) righteous.
8. actual, real, or genuine.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/01/08 09:23 PM

jibb444, I don't think anyone on this thread believes God won't punish people, although there is a difference of opinion as to what this means and how it will occur. Perhaps you could quote some statement by someone, and then make a comment or ask a question about that.

Posted By: jibb444

Re: The Covenants - 12/01/08 09:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Thanks Tom for the invite. I'll ask a question. Is there degrees of punishment for the wicked? Just to clarify I do have an opinion on this but I am learning everyday and always keep an open mind.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/01/08 10:07 PM

I think everyone on this site would agree that there are degrees of punishment for the wicked. I have met people who do not have this opinion, but do not think anyone posting here has it. Again, however, there is a difference of opinion as to what this means, or how this will occur.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 12/01/08 10:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

First of all, it is not a sin to hunt. Second, it does not violate the law to teach people how to hunt humanely.

hi brother, do you really believe that hunting is not a sin? if a person were hungry and there was nothing else to eat i might agree with you.

but are you speaking of the "sport"? i cannot imagine God in His heaven looking down and seeing the different hunting parties going after the different animals He created for us to enjoy and not crying His heart out!!

i believe in the eyes of God that hunting is one of the grossest sins there is. anyone who would take delight in hunting a defenseless, harmless creature minding its own busines for the thrill of killing....!!

Posted By: Colin

Re: The Covenants - 12/02/08 12:37 AM

Quote:

As a supporter of fox hunting, I'd better chip in here, without drawing this thread away from topic...

Killing foxes with dogs (now illegal) was instantaneous, and altogether humane - the alleged shaking of the fox was post-mortem, to educate the other hounds on the fox's scent. Hounds are the best guarantee of killing foxes without injuring them instead.

There is sport in a hunt, but it's not the sport of hunting, and that anyone thinks that is down to bias and very bad journalism. Landowners, principally farmers, make hunting possible, and facilitate the sport involved: hunt days once a month are the sport occasions, while there is hunting any day of the week, any time of day - without sport. Foxes are hunted purely to protect livestock, at a farmer's request, day or night, and then the hunt master and staff and dogs go out to deal with the potential threat to farm animals. Yes, the hounds and the staff are a business operated for and paid a fee by farmers.

Hunt days are horse riding across private land, fields, forests and fences/hedgerows, with the permission of the landowners, the same farmers who are protected by the commercial hunts: the pleasure of legally riding through private, secluded rural landscapes in a moderately large group of horse-riders, with fox hounds in tow, is the sport of fox hunting. There is also the matter of exercising the horses during these winter months - fox hunting has always only been allowed over the winter, as many of the horses in hunts across the country are race horses in the summer time, exercising as such and also practising jumping fences.

Foxes are also culled in this process, as is necessary to manage nature in Britain. There is a Christian stewardship angle to fox hunting...

That's the end of this excursion, probably.

Posted By: Daryl

Re: The Covenants - 12/02/08 04:02 AM

Speaking of not drawing this thread off topic, what happened to the original intent of this thread regarding The Covenants?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/08 01:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Quote:

Tom, the DA 758 quote you posted does not say the holy angels needed to behold Christ and Him crucified to clear up certain misunderstandings they had concerning the law and love of God.

Christ's death did not end the GC. Why not? Ellen says it is because there are unresolved issues. "Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}

Again, she does not say the holy angels were unclear about God's law and love. Instead, she says they are unclear about certain aspects of Satan's rebellion. You seem to be confusing being unclear about Satan with being unclear about God. But the two are worlds apart. There is no comparison.

Originally Posted By: Tom

Quote:

Your "humane hunter" story does not explain why God commanded Moses to kill two sinners.

Yes it does, but apparently you're not understanding how.

Quote:

Nor does it explain all the other stories where God commanded Jews to kill people. First of all, it is not a sin to hunt. Second, it does not violate the law to teach people how to hunt humanely.

It just looks like you're not getting the point.

Quote:

Asking me to read your "humane hunter" story, to understand why God commanded Moses to kill those two guys, seems to imply that He taught the Jews how to kill sinners in the most humane manner.

Yes, you're not getting it. I'm sorry about that.

Quote:

We're just going to have to skip this, I think.

The "humane hunter" story describes a father teaching his son how to hunt humanely. The father opposes hunting, but since his son insists on it, the father teaches him how to do it humanely. How does this story explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? The Jews were not eager to kill them. They didn't know what to do. So, they asked God. Why did God command Moses to kill them? Did Jesus do anything like it when He was here?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/08 01:20 AM

Originally Posted By: kland

Do you have inspired passages which state the God's direct punishment of the wicked serves to educate and enlighten the righteous?

How about these two: And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; (2 Peter 2:6) Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. (1 Cor 10:11)

Here it is from the other end of the spectrum: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18)

Originally Posted By: kland

Do you suggest, as implicated by your posts, that we should decide the truth based upon the number of passages supporting each opinion?

Opinions shouldn't have anything to do with establishing the truth, right? Especially "testing truths". You seemed to imply that God caused the Flood by ceasing upholding the fixed laws of nature, as if nature would implode upon itself if God didn't act supernaturally to prevent it. You also seemed to imply this state of things began during creation week. Is it unreasonable to ask you to post inspired passages to support this idea?

PS - I appreciate the kind and loving way you addressed the things I posted that offended you. I have taken it to heart and am praying Jesus will help me to do better in the future. I apologize for offending you.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/08 02:12 AM

Originally Posted By: kland

M: I do not believe God finds pleasure in punishing people. Circumstances forces Him to do it, but He is not willing that any should perish. Yes, He is pleased law and justice are served and satisfied, but not pleased sinners neglect heaven-sent opportunities for learning the way of peace and righteousness, not pleased they reject Jesus.

K: He is forced to execute the law, even though He does not wish to? Suppose someone received a speeding ticket. They go before the judge. The judge has mercy and cancels it. But yet, you say God cannot change some law which He is not happy about executing, and takes great pleasure in seeing that it is satisfied? Love - mercy. Not sure how to reconcile this.

Correct. God cannot disregard the law. He must uphold it. Otherwise, why command it?

Originally Posted By: kland

M: However, the Bible describes God as the One who will punish and destroy sinners in the lake of fire - not sin. Such punishment is neither cruel nor torture. It is justice.

K: And in what way could God act that could be considered cruel or torture? Just saying that God is holy and therefore nothing He does is cruel doesn't answer the question.

God is love, therefore, He cannot be cruel. Otherwise, He would cease to be God. When a State executes a criminal it is not considered cruel. Nor it is considered torture. God often commanded His chosen people to kill sinners. Not even stoning someone to death was considered cruel.

Originally Posted By: kland

M: Also, please explain why a loving God would consent to command Moses to kill two people.

K: Not sure if I missed something here, but it sounds like you saying that if God was loving, He wouldn't say to kill people. However since He did, He is not loving.

Yes, you did miss something. The point is God did command Moses to stone two guys to death (and others as well) and it was not considered cruel or unloving. God can do things that would be wrong for us to do. For example: "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. {LDE 241.2}

Originally Posted By: kland

Since you think my views of your views are wrong, that you see God as not loving and kind, maybe you could state exactly what your views are of God. That is, since you did not answer my question, put your views into my question and then answer it. You do see your views are different than mine. I'm asking, why do you choose a presumed premise which precludes a fill in your view of God here God rather than my view of God who lets the flood waters come back, who is always consistent, never taking emergency measures, lets the wicked reap their results, who never directly kills them....

From what I've seen, the reason is because you do not find a specific direct quote which you interpret that way. Is that the reason?

"Why do you choose a presumed premise which [portrays God using various means and methods to punish and destroy impenitent sinners] rather than my view of God who lets the flood waters come back, who is always consistent, never taking emergency measures, lets the wicked reap their results, who never directly kills them?"

1. "Who lets the flood waters come back." I'm not sure which fixed laws of nature God employed to cause the flood, but I am certain He did. I do not believe God created a condition during creation week that resulted in water wanting to return to its pre-creation state and killing everything in the process the moment God should cease holding it back.

2. "Who is always consistent." Yes, God is always consistent.

3. "Never taking emergency measures." Again, yes, God has never compromised with sinners in order to accommodate sinful practices. That's not to say He never compromised. For example, He gave Israel a king.

4. "Lets the wicked reap their results." Yes, God does do this. However, not always. He often intercedes and prevents sinners from reaping the results of their sinful choices. For example, Jesus healed the "impotent man" and told him to sin no more lest a worse thing come upon him. If Jesus hadn't healed him he would have continued reaping the results of his sin. In other cases, Jesus intervenes and totally circumvents the normal, natural results of sin.

5. "Who never directly kills them." Here is where we disagree. I believe God has killed sinners directly. For example, the fire that came out of the tabernacle and killed Nadab and Abihu "went out from the Lord." Also, God is just as responsible for killing the sinners He commanded Moses and others to kill. It doesn't matter that He didn't do it directly.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/08 02:25 AM

Originally Posted By: jibb444

Originally Posted By: Tom

Thanks Tom for the invite. I'll ask a question. Is there degrees of punishment for the wicked? Just to clarify I do have an opinion on this but I am learning everyday and always keep an open mind.

Yes, there are degrees of punishment for sin. The suffering sinners experience in this lifetime is not the actual punishment for sin. The punishment for sin is the second death experience in the lake of fire. Jesus is the only one who has experienced the second death. His case is different in that He conquered the second death. Nevertheless, He tasted and consumed it to the maximum.

The question is - Does God do anything to cause sinners to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness? Or, does He withdraw His protection and allow sin to cause them to suffer according to their words and works? What do you believe?

I believe God will employ three different forms of fire to punish sinners according to their sinfulness: 1) fire from above, 2) fire from below, and 3) the fire light of His glory and brightness.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/08 02:34 AM

Originally Posted By: teresaq

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

First of all, it is not a sin to hunt. Second, it does not violate the law to teach people how to hunt humanely.

Actually, yeah, I agree hunting for sport is cruel. Hunting to feed your family is not. Jesus allowed demons to enter pigs knowing they would be drowned. Allowing animals to die for a good reason is not cruel. And, after His resurrection, Jesus cooked fish and ate it with His disciples. So, killing animals for food is not a sin.

PS - My wife and I are vegans. However, we do eat "clean" meat on rare occasions. And, when eating outside our home, we are not strict about not eating animal byproducts.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/08 02:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Daryl Fawcett

Speaking of not drawing this thread off topic, what happened to the original intent of this thread regarding The Covenants?

Discussing the Covenant involves understanding why Jesus had to die and how justice will be meted out during judgment.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/08 04:21 AM

Quote:

M:Tom, the DA 758 quote you posted does not say the holy angels needed to behold Christ and Him crucified to clear up certain misunderstandings they had concerning the law and love of God.

T:The quote points out that Christ's death was not just for us, but for the angels and unfallen worlds as well. Christ's death resolved the Great Controversy. The chapter goes into depth explaining this. There are other passages as well which point out that apart from the cross, the angels would be no more secure than they were before Lucifer rebelled.

M:Christ's death did not end the GC. Why not? Ellen says it is because there are unresolved issues. "Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}

Again, she does not say the holy angels were unclear about God's law and love. Instead, she says they are unclear about certain aspects of Satan's rebellion. You seem to be confusing being unclear about Satan with being unclear about God. But the two are worlds apart. There is no comparison.

It's not a confusion, MM. To the extent that the angels were unclear in regards to Satan's character, they were unclear about God's. Think about it. Satan was making claims about God. If Satan was trustworthy, then there was a chance these claims were true.

The point of the Ever Lasting Father story is in what the neighbors would have thought had they seen the Father explaining to the son the principles of hunting. Just as the father in the story had no desire that his son should hunt, so did God have no desire that the Israelites should kill.

Regarding your question if Jesus did anything like your understanding of what happened with Moses, the answer is no. This has been my whole point. You should readjust your understanding of what happened with Moses to agree with what Jesus did and said.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/08 04:30 AM

Quote:

The question is - Does God do anything to cause sinners to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness? Or, does He withdraw His protection and allow sin to cause them to suffer according to their words and works? What do you believe?

I think you may have a misunderstanding in what I've been trying to say. Actually Rosangela's comment that we could not bear the guilt of our sin comes to bear on what I think. During our earthly life, Christ bears the guilt of our sin, meaning we do not need to come face to face with it. In the judgment, those who have rejected Christ, will come face to face with their sin and guilt, and will not be able to bear it. Those who have more sin and guilt will suffer more, not because God does something arbitrary, like burn them alive extra if they've sinned more, but because the fact of having more sin and guilt means there is more suffering when they come face to face with it.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 12/04/08 05:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: teresaq

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

First of all, it is not a sin to hunt. Second, it does not violate the law to teach people how to hunt humanely.

i am very glad to hear that we are in basic agreement about hunting!! i feel very strongly about that being an animal person. but i know people who hunt and eat meat and have not felt called to say much unless its in context, and then as gently as i can.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/05/08 04:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: kland

Do you have inspired passages which state the God's direct punishment of the wicked serves to educate and enlighten the righteous?

How about these two: And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha...

I was referring to the second death of the wicked.

Quote:

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins,

Perhaps, but do you agree Christ's death, or taste of death, and it's purpose is different than that of the wicked?

Quote:

Opinions shouldn't have anything to do with establishing the truth, right? Especially "testing truths".

But what should we do when there are multiple opinions, each supported by passages as have been done by both Tom and you?

Quote:

You seemed to imply that God caused the Flood by ceasing upholding the fixed laws of nature, as if nature would implode upon itself if God didn't act supernaturally to prevent it. You also seemed to imply this state of things began during creation week. Is it unreasonable to ask you to post inspired passages to support this idea?

Not unreasonable at all. I already gave you Genesis. I believe creation week was a supernatural act - don't you?

Elihu thought God was sustaining the earth and life:

Originally Posted By: Job 34:13-15

Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice. Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world? If he should take back his spirit to himself, and gather to himself his breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust.

But, he may have been as wrong as you think I. How does God respond?

Originally Posted By: Job 38:8-11

"Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth from the womb; when I made clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors, and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?

I recall another passage which I haven't found yet saying that God sustains life/earth/creation.

Quote:

K: And in what way could God act that could be considered cruel or torture? Just saying that God is holy and therefore nothing He does is cruel doesn't answer the question.

Okayyyy, I guess you did just say it.....

Do you see where Hitler comes from? Where Islam extremismcomes from? They are just doing God's bidding and therefore anything they do is "love".

Also, not much different than the judge saying he can run traffic lights because he is judge and nothing he does could be considered wrong - because he, as in his position, upholds the law! And that - is the world's history of cruelty and torture.

Quote:

The point is God did command Moses to stone two guys to death (and others as well) and it was not considered cruel or unloving. God can do things that would be wrong for us to do.

Did you just support what I said right above?

Also:

Quote:

Allowing animals to die for a good reason is not cruel.

And a good reason is to watch animals fall over. That's not cruel. That's a good reason. - ?

Quote:

I do not believe God created a condition during creation week that resulted in water wanting to return to its pre-creation state and killing everything in the process the moment God should cease holding it back.

Are you familiar with the theory of entropy? I made the assumption you were. Tom elaborated in trying to explain my statement. In the beginning, before God had performed a supernatural act, the earth was covered with water. All of it. This would be considered the natural, lowest ordered state. It would continue to be that way until work was performed in an intelligent way working against this state of disorder. He did. It would follow, that laws of disorder would tend towards it returning to that state unless additional work was maintained in an intelligent way to maintain that state.

Whether you agree whether that happened/happens or not, doesn't that at least make logical sense?

Quote:

Also, God is just as responsible for killing the sinners He commanded Moses and others to kill. It doesn't matter that He didn't do it directly.

Re: The Covenants - 12/06/08 10:51 PM

Originally Posted By: teresaq

Amen!

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/06/08 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

No. You are assuming too much for it to be logical. God upholds the fixed laws of nature. Nature behaves the way it does because God upholds the fixed laws that cause it to behave the way it does. When our planet was just an underwater rock all the elements acted in harmony with the fixed laws God upheld.

But when God rearranged those elements six thousand years ago He implemented new laws to maintain the new order of things. The newly arranged elements began acting in harmony with the newly implemented fixed laws God upheld. The old order of things no longer existed. Therefore, God stopped upholding the old fixed laws for the simple reason the old order of things no longer existed.

Another illogical assumption is the idea that nature would naturally return its pre-creation state if God stopped supernaturally working against it. First, it assumes nature can do something without God, that it can obey its own laws. Second, it assumes an underwater rock is the original state.

In reality, though, nature can do nothing on its own. It does what God makes it do through laws He established and upholds. The Flood, therefore, happened because God made it happen. The forces of nature obeyed the laws God implemented for the purpose of destroying the world and its inhabitants.

Also, God made everything in the Universe out of nothing. Consequently, if we want to apply the laws of entropy to the Flood, as we currently understand them, we would be forced to conclude nature, if left alone, would eventually cease to exist. It would vanish altogether.

Originally Posted By: kland

So, wouldn't a question be as to why sometimes God kills people directly and other times He tells someone else to do it?

Very good question. Do you have an answer?

Originally Posted By: kland

A past question: When did the Israelites first kill people?

If Abraham is the father of Israel, then he was the first Israelite to kill someone. See Genesis 14.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 12/07/08 12:03 AM

Kland, yes, God was forced to reword the law to meet man in His fallen state. And, Jesus had to change to save mankind. He is no longer only God. He is now the God-man. New laws apply. Things changed radically for Him. Listen:

Quote:

After the fall, the principles of those precepts were not changed, but additional precepts were given to meet man in his fallen state (3SG 295). {1BC 1104.3}

The principles were more explicitly stated to man after the fall, and worded to meet the case of fallen intelligences. This was necessary in consequence of the minds of men being blinded by transgression (ST April 15, 1875). {1BC 1104.4}

After the transgression of Adam the principles of the law were . . . definitely arranged and expressed to meet man in his fallen condition. Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the Son of God. . . . Through the blood of this victim, man looked forward by faith to the blood of Christ which would atone for the sins of the world. {AG 131.5}

You asked, "Why does it seem to me that these two statements are contradictory?" The truth is God will never "take a break" therefore the Universe will never vanish into nothingness (assuming that's what would happen if He did; the fact is, though, we have no way of knowing for sure what would happen).

Remember, God spoke everything into existence out of nothing. Things just appeared out of nowhere in an instant of time. It makes sense, therefore, to assume things would disappear just as suddenly if God ceased doing whatever it is He does to keep things in order. The laws of entropy as we know them would not apply. That is, it wouldn't take zillions of years for everything to vanish and cease to be. Besides, the laws of entropy do not say things would would vanish and cease to exist.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/08/08 09:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Remember, God spoke everything into existence out of nothing. Things just appeared out of nowhere in an instant of time. It makes sense, therefore, to assume things would disappear just as suddenly if God ceased doing whatever it is He does to keep things in order. The laws of entropy as we know them would not apply. That is, it wouldn't take zillions of years for everything to vanish and cease to be. Besides, the laws of entropy do not say things would would vanish and cease to exist.

So, exchange my entropy with your cease to exist idea.

If God should cease to do whatever it was that prevented the earth from being flooded, it would suddenly become flooded.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 12/08/08 11:37 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

So, exchange my entropy with your cease to exist idea.

If God should cease to do whatever it was that prevented the earth from being flooded, it would suddenly become flooded.

not now. if there was water in the earth before but now there is fire-which we know there is-then the earth would be engulfed in flames, or cease to exist.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/09/08 02:01 AM

Originally Posted By: teresaq

not now. if there was water in the earth before but now there is fire-which we know there is-then the earth would be engulfed in flames, or cease to exist.

Excellent point. MM said what God will do at the second death is similar to what God did at the Flood. My comment referred not to the current times, but what happened at the flood. Which brings up support for MM's assertion that things are different. In a way, anyway. And that is by removing the flood waters for Noah, He created a different type of entropy. This is not a case of God changing His physical or moral laws, but providing a lower state for the waters to exist. The result was not as good as He originally created as now there are greater amounts of seas/oceans. Ellen White talks about that part.

Now, by letting go, the waters are already at their lowest point so nothing happens. However, now comes the question is if He is holding back the fires, what happens if He lets go?

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 12/09/08 03:27 AM

Originally Posted By: kland

Originally Posted By: teresaq

not now. if there was water in the earth before but now there is fire-which we know there is-then the earth would be engulfed in flames, or cease to exist.

this is an interesting discussion in itself. (i hope my mode of writing is getting easier on the eyes, my brother/sister. :))

He has to be holding back the fires, since egw explains somewhere the causes of earthquakes and volcanos. the flood did a job on the earth and only by the grace of God is there any security that the whole earth doesnt just explode, or something similar.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/09/08 09:55 AM

What you're talking about is something I've thought about, in regards to the destruction by fire and water. The earth's crust is very, very thin. So it wouldn't take much for it to give way to forces underneath, whether water or fire. One can easily imagine a similar mechanism for both the destruction by fire at the end and the flood previously.

I hadn't thought of the entity angle before. That's an interesting thought.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/09/08 09:28 PM

GC Pg. 35-37:

The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for
themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction
that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed
them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest
which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: "O
Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by
thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often
represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct
decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to
conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love
and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be
withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them
according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the
destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's
vindictive power over those who yield to his control.

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the
peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining
power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully
under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful
have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and
long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power
of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine
forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand
toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against
transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to
themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of
light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every
passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is
a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit
of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the
sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil
passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and
enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful
and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers
of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy.
Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's
hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall
upon the guilty.

The Saviour's prophecy concerning the visitation of
judgments upon Jerusalem is to have another fulfillment, of
which that terrible desolation was but a faint shadow. In the
fate of the chosen city we may behold the doom of a world
that has rejected God's mercy and trampled upon His law.
Dark are the records of human misery that earth has
witnessed during its long centuries of crime. The heart sickens,
and the mind grows faint in contemplation. Terrible have
been the results of rejecting the authority of Heaven. But a
scene yet darker is presented in the revelations of the future.
The records of the past,--the long procession of tumults,
conflicts, and revolutions, the "battle of the warrior . . . with
confused noise, and garments rolled in blood" (Isaiah 9:5),--
what are these, in contrast with the terrors of that day when
the restraining Spirit of God shall be wholly withdrawn
from the wicked, no longer to hold in check the outburst
of human passion and satanic wrath! The world will then
behold, as never before, the results of Satan's rule.
...
Like Israel of old the wicked destroy themselves;
they fall by their iniquity. By a life of sin, they have placed
themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have
become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His
glory is to them a consuming fire.

PP Pg. 428, 429:

After bringing trouble upon
themselves, making their lot altogether harder than God designed,
they charged all their misfortunes upon Him. Thus they cherished
bitter thoughts concerning His dealings with them, and finally
they became discontented with everything. Egypt looked brighter
and more desirable than liberty and the land to which God was
leading them.

As the Israelites indulged the spirit of discontent, they were
disposed to find fault even with their blessings. "And the people
spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye
brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there
is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this
light bread."

Moses faithfully set before the people their great sin. It was
God's power alone that had preserved them in "that great and
terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions,
and drought, where there was no water." Deuteronomy 8:15.
Every day of their travels they had been kept by a miracle of
divine mercy. In all the way of God's leading they had found
water to refresh the thirsty, bread from heaven to satisfy their
hunger, and peace and safety under the shadowy cloud by day
and the pillar of fire by night. Angels had ministered to them
as they climbed the rocky heights or threaded the rugged paths
of the wilderness. Notwithstanding the hardships they had
endured, there was not a feeble one in all their ranks. Their feet
had not swollen in their long journeys, neither had their clothes
grown old. God had subdued before them the fierce beasts of
prey and the venomous reptiles of the forest and the desert. If
with all these tokens of His love the people still continued to
complain, the Lord would withdraw His protection until they
should be led to appreciate His merciful care, and return to Him
with repentance and humiliation.

Because they had been shielded by divine power they had not
realized the countless dangers by which they were continually
surrounded. In their ingratitude and unbelief they had anticipated
death, and now the Lord permitted death to come upon
them. The poisonous serpents that infested the wilderness were
called fiery serpents, on account of the terrible effects produced
by their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death.
As the protecting hand of God was removed from Israel, great
numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous
creatures.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/11/08 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

M: Remember, God spoke everything into existence out of nothing. Things just appeared out of nowhere in an instant of time. It makes sense, therefore, to assume things would disappear just as suddenly if God ceased doing whatever it is He does to keep things in order. The laws of entropy as we know them would not apply. That is, it wouldn't take zillions of years for everything to vanish and cease to be. Besides, the laws of entropy do not say things would would vanish and cease to exist.

K: So, exchange my entropy with your cease to exist idea. If God should cease to do whatever it was that prevented the earth from being flooded, it would suddenly become flooded.

Since we cannot know for certain what would or wouldn't happen, I suppose one speculative guess is as good as another. There is no harm in wondering so long as we do not become dogmatic. As for me, I do not wonder if God had to do something unnatural or supernatural to prevent the Flood from naturally occurring. I believe nature was obeying the laws God was sustaining. I do not see nature as chomping at the bit to return to its former worldwide state. Instead, I see the flood happening in obedience to God's command and control. In this sense, the forces of nature are obeying the command of God, yielding to His control. I do not see God withdrawing and allowing nature to do as she pleases as if she had a will and mind of her own, or was following a higher, former, original set of laws. But who can be certain?

Originally Posted By: kland

Now, by letting go, the waters are already at their lowest point so nothing happens. However, now comes the question is if He is holding back the fires, what happens if He lets go?

Again, we cannot know for certain what would or wouldn't happen if God suddenly stopped sustaining the laws that regulate and control the forces of nature. Most likely everything would simply vanish and cease to exist. God would not surrender control and stop upholding the laws of nature. He can, though, employ the forces of nature to accomplish His will. I doubt there are default laws nature would instinctively obey if God decided to take a break. God is always and forever in control. Nothing is left to chance or chaos.

Must God now unnaturally or supernaturally hold back the coal and oil and fires under the surface of the earth to prevent them from instinctively escaping and burning everything up? Again, who can know for certain? The following passages provide insights which indicate the forces of nature above and below the earth will once again obey the voice of God when He commands them to cause worldwide destruction. Rather than withdrawing and abandoning the laws of nature, it makes more sense to me to believe God will employ the laws of nature to accomplish His purposes.

Quote:

The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters gushing from the earth united with the waters from heaven to accomplish the work of desolation. Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities. These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. As men have beheld burning mountains pouring forth fire and flames and torrents of melted ore, drying up rivers, overwhelming populous cities, and everywhere spreading ruin and desolation, the stoutest heart has been filled with terror and infidels and blasphemers have been constrained to acknowledge the infinite power of God. {PP 109.1}

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}

In the day of the Lord, just before the coming of Christ, God will send lightnings from Heaven in his wrath, which will unite with fire in the earth. The mountains will burn like a furnace, and will pour forth terrible streams of lava, destroying gardens and fields, villages and cities; and as they pour their melted ore, rocks and heated mud into the rivers, will cause them to boil like a pot, and send forth massive rocks and scatter their broken fragments upon the land with indescribable violence. Whole rivers will be dried up. The earth will be convulsed, and there will be dreadful eruptions and earthquakes everywhere. God will plague the wicked inhabitants of the earth until they are destroyed from off it. {3SG 82.3}

Those majestic trees which God had caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction. As he called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the flood, as weapons from his arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years he will call forth the fires in the earth as his weapons which he has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the flood. {3SG 87.1}

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/12/08 08:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

I do not see God withdrawing and allowing nature to do as she pleases as if she had a will and mind of her own, or was following a higher, former, original set of laws.

You are going to have to help me out here. Because that seems to conflict with what you said that you requoted

Quote:

It makes sense, therefore, to assume things would disappear just as suddenly if God ceased doing whatever it is He does to keep things in order.

along with your present text

Quote:

I believe nature was obeying the laws God was sustaining.

Are you saying God is sustaining the physical laws rather than God sustaining against the physical laws?

Do you disagree with my quote from the Great Controversy and Patriarchs and Prophets?

But, a more important question, which I asked before, is that if you are saying God changed His physical laws, can God change His moral laws?

That is, in the beginning, God created the Sabbath. Now, after the cross, He has changed that law to honor His resurrection. He has implemented new laws to maintain a new order of things because the old order was finished. Would you agree with that? Why or why not?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/13/08 08:22 PM

1. God upholds, sustains the laws of nature and through them He maintains law and order. Nature does not have a will or mind of its own. It is not straining against God trying to return to its former state (i.e. an under water rock).

2. Yes, of course, I agree with the content of the GC and PP quotes you posted. How do you relate it to the laws of nature, the Flood, and the final conflagration?

3. God's law is eternal. It is forever unchanging. However, the condition and changing circumstances of sin forced Him to adapt and apply the law to accommodate sin and salvation. For example, originally God commanded mankind to observe the Sabbath in honor of His creative love and power (rest from work). Later on, He included the Exodus (rest from slavery), and then He added the redemption and recreation of sinners (rest from works of self-righteousness).

4. Rather than withdrawing and abandoning the laws of nature, it makes more sense to me to believe God will employ the laws of nature to accomplish His purposes during the end time punishment and destruction of impenitent sinners. Do you agree?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/14/08 09:16 AM

Regarding nature, entropy is a principle of nature. It takes an intelligent mind (if you don't believe in evolution) to produce effects contrary to entropy. If an intelligent mind does not impose its will to act against entropy, a random, disordered end is what results.

The idea is not that God withdraws and abandons the laws of nature, but that God stops counteracting certain specific laws of nature. That's one explanation for natural disasters. Another, which early Christians had, but has been largely set aside in our scientific age, is that evil angels, headed by Satan, are responsible for natural disasters. Some modern Christians have questioned if the early Christians might have been right after all.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/15/08 06:03 PM

You had asked to support with inspired passages the idea that God acts supernaturally to prevent entropy, whether it be the flood waters returning or any other natural laws. I feel I have. If you disagree, then what would be needed to meet the requirements?

From the PP quote:
It was God's power alone that had preserved them in "that great and
terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions,
and drought, where there was no water."

Every day of their travels they had been kept by a miracle of
divine mercy.

Their feet had not swollen in their long journeys, neither had their clothes
grown old.

Sounds like a direct counteraction of entropy.

God had subdued before them the fierce beasts of
prey and the venomous reptiles of the forest and the desert.

Sounds like direct protection from the natural forces that were there.

If with all these tokens of His love the people still continued to
complain, the Lord would withdraw His protection until they
should be led to appreciate His merciful care, and return to Him
with repentance and humiliation.

Doesn't sound like God would send fierce beasts and venomous reptiles, but would withdraw His protection from them.

Because they had been shielded by divine power they had not
realized the countless dangers by which they were continually
surrounded.

Surrounded, not sent.

and now the Lord permitted death to come upon them.

Permitted, not sent.

As the protecting hand of God was removed from Israel, great
numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous
creatures.

God removed His protecting hand. The surrounding reptiles attacked.

This, to me, disagrees with your statement #1, and #4. As Tom said, God doesn't withdraw laws of nature, but stops preventing it from happening. He doesn't employ nature to maim, kill, or torture people. He stops preventing it from happening.

From the GC quote:

Their sufferings are often
represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct
decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to
conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love
and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be
withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them
according to his will.

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the
peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining
power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully
under the control of Satan.

The disobedient and unthankful
have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and
long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power
of the evil one.

But when men pass the limits of divine
forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand
toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against
transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to
themselves, to reap that which they have sown.

The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the
sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil
passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and
enmity of Satan.

what are these, in contrast with the terrors of that day when
the restraining Spirit of God shall be wholly withdrawn
from the wicked, no longer to hold in check the outburst
of human passion and satanic wrath! The world will then
behold, as never before, the results of Satan's rule.

Like Israel of old the wicked destroy themselves;
they fall by their iniquity.

By a life of sin, they have placed
themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have
become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His
glory is to them a consuming fire.

I think that is pretty clear. I believe that addressed your #2 and #4.

Regarding #3, you seem to be saying that God's law (meaning one portion of His laws) is eternal (mostly), while another portion (physics) is not. And again, I am disturbed by your implication that we no longer observe the Sabbath in honor of His creative love and power. Though you did say, "add". Maybe I'm failing in thinking you are addressing my question of, if "God changed His physical laws, can God change His moral laws?"

Regarding #4, as was pointed out, it is not withdrawing the laws of nature, but restricting, restraining, working and acting against them, applying intelligence in a direct and active way. And no, I don't agree God "employs" laws of nature in a direct and active way as you are intending in order to "punish" the wicked nor to destroy them. It happens as a natural result of withdrawing not nature, but protection from it, from themselves, from Satan, and from His "glory".

Otherwise, I would have to disagree with the GC quote.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/18/08 12:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

The idea is not that God withdraws and abandons the laws of nature, but that God stops counteracting certain specific laws of nature. That's one explanation for natural disasters. Another, which early Christians had, but has been largely set aside in our scientific age, is that evil angels, headed by Satan, are responsible for natural disasters. Some modern Christians have questioned if the early Christians might have been right after all.

I can accept these explanations, Tom. There is a third explanation that makes sense to me, too. God commands holy angels to employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. On a another note, God has also commanded humans to kill sinners.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/18/08 12:51 AM

Originally Posted By: kland

This, to me, disagrees with your statement #1, and #4. As Tom said, God doesn't withdraw laws of nature, but stops preventing it from happening. He doesn't employ nature to maim, kill, or torture people. He stops preventing it from happening.

Thank you for putting so much time into addressing my points. I appreciate it very much. I know how long it takes to create a post like the one you posted above. Again, thank you.

However, the quotes you posted did not address the Flood or the final conflagration. They did, nevertheless, very nicely support the idea that God has caused death and destruction by ceasing to enforce certain laws and allowing others to play out naturally.

Originally Posted By: kland

I think that is pretty clear. I believe that addressed your #2 and #4.

Which natural laws does God cease enforcing and which ones does He permit to play out that result in Satan leading beast-marked sinners to hunt down Sabbath-keepers with intentions of imprisoning and/or killing them? Also, the quotes you posted did not address the Flood or the final conflagration.

Originally Posted By: kland

Regarding #3, you seem to be saying that God's law (meaning one portion of His laws) is eternal (mostly), while another portion (physics) is not. And again, I am disturbed by your implication that we no longer observe the Sabbath in honor of His creative love and power. Though you did say, "add". Maybe I'm failing in thinking you are addressing my question of, if "God changed His physical laws, can God change His moral laws?"

I do not think, though I cannot know for certain, that water would return to its pre-creation state if God were to cease preventing it from doing so. Also, please rest assured that I believe honoring God's creative love and power are still reasons why we should observe the seventh-day Sabbath. Plus, God has not changed His moral law. He has been by forced by the condition and circumstances of sin to adapt it to accommodates sin and salvation, something He would have never done had FMAs remained loyal. Nor do I think God changed the laws of nature. It's just that certain laws no longer apply because the conditions they applied to no longer exist (i.e. the state of things before God spoke the planet into the existing state).

Originally Posted By: kland

Regarding #4, as was pointed out, it is not withdrawing the laws of nature, but restricting, restraining, working and acting against them, applying intelligence in a direct and active way. And no, I don't agree God "employs" laws of nature in a direct and active way as you are intending in order to "punish" the wicked nor to destroy them. It happens as a natural result of withdrawing not nature, but protection from it, from themselves, from Satan, and from His "glory". Otherwise, I would have to disagree with the GC quote.

As you know, I agree that one of the many ways God causes death and destruction involves Him ceasing to enforce laws that prevent other laws from causing death and destruction. However, I also believe God employs the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. I realize you think this idea places God in an unfavorable light.

However, in practical terms, I do not see a significant difference between these two methods of causing death and destruction. The results are the same, namely, people suffer and die when nature behaves in a certain way. I also see no significant difference in God commanding holy angels, or permitting evil angels, to employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. Again, the results are the same.

Plus, there is no natural cause and effect relationship between the sins committed and the disasters that cause sinners to suffer and die when God commands or permits it. For example, none of the sins committed by the antediluvians caused the forces of nature to react in a worldwide flood killing everyone save those nestled safely in the Ark. The fact God chose to cause a global flood to destroy sinners, instead of a global conflagration, or a global plague, or whatever, was a matter of choice.

In other words, the sins committed by the antediluvians did not dictate how God could and could not destroy them. He could have just as easily decided to destroy them in a zillion other ways. The choice was His to make. How He chose to destroy them was not dependent on any specific sins they committed. The method did not have to match the sin. There was no requirement that the method be related to the sin in a natural cause and effect way.

The point is - The means and method God chose to destroy the antediluvians was arbitrary in the sense it did not follow any normal or natural cause and effect laws. That is, none of their sins, none of their activities, none of their behaviors, etc, impacted or negated any of the laws that God was upholding to prevent a global flood from happening naturally.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/18/08 03:36 AM

Quote:

T:The idea is not that God withdraws and abandons the laws of nature, but that God stops counteracting certain specific laws of nature. That's one explanation for natural disasters. Another, which early Christians had, but has been largely set aside in our scientific age, is that evil angels, headed by Satan, are responsible for natural disasters. Some modern Christians have questioned if the early Christians might have been right after all.

M:I can accept these explanations, Tom. There is a third explanation that makes sense to me, too. God commands holy angels to employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. On a another note, God has also commanded humans to kill sinners.

I don't accept the last two as possibilities, because to do so I believe is out of harmony with God's character. I realize I'm in a minority to think this way, but I just see God as being like Jesus Christ was; unassuming, gentle, non-violent, humble; all these things that Jesus Christ was, I see God as being.

At least twice Jesus Christ addressed the issue of commanding angels to destroy. The first time He was urged to destroy by His disciples, and He responded that they didn't know of what spirit they were. I think this is a key point. It is not the spirit of God to destroy, but to save. This is just what Jesus said.

Now what did He mean by this? Did He mean that it's never the spirit of God to destroy? Or just sometimes?

The SOP said that Satan is the destroyer, and God is the restorer. Sounds like what Jesus said. The same questions come to mind. Did she mean sometime Satan is the destroyer? Sometimes God is the restorer?

The SOP said that force is not a principle of God's government. Did she mean some of the time? Or all of the time? She said the Lord's principles are not of this order, that His government is a moral government, and the principles it uses to influence are not force, but love. Did she mean some of the time? Or all of the time?

The second time Jesus addressed this was with Peter in the garden, where He told Peter to put aside his sword, explaining that if He wanted to, He could send legions of angels to physically defend Him. He told Peter that those who live by the sword die by the sword.

Jesus' whole life He counseled against the use of force. He never used it Himself to resolve any conflict, and He never taught that His followers should engage in such behavior. By both word and deed, Jesus presented God as One who does not use force or violence to get His way.

The SOP comments:

Quote:

Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work.(GC 35)

Unfortunately, to my view, Satan has been extremely successful at this tactic, which has been his tactic all along, to present God's character in a way it is not. Virtually the whole world, including Christians(!), view God is One who uses force and violence to achieve His purposes, in spite of the fact that Jesus Christ Himself both taught and acted contrary to this idea.

I really like what kland said in regards to assumptions and the interpretation of data. I assume that God is like Jesus Christ, and always has been, and interpret the data that way. You have different assumptions, which allows you to interpret the data differently.

I disagree with your assumptions. I don't think arguing over the data will be any fruitful than when Creationists and Evolutionists argue. One looks at the Grand Canyon and sees the work of the flood. Another looks at it, and sees the work of eons of time. Both see evidence of their point of view, of their assumption.

To get at the core issue would involve discussing the question, "What is God really like?" This is a point kland has been making. Can we accept a "kinder" view of God?

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 12/18/08 04:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Plus, there is no natural cause and effect relationship between the sins committed and the disasters that cause sinners to suffer and die when God commands or permits it. For example, none of the sins committed by the antediluvians caused the forces of nature to react in a worldwide flood killing everyone save those nestled safely in the Ark. The fact God chose to cause a global flood to destroy sinners, instead of a global conflagration, or a global plague, or whatever, was a matter of choice.

1. Your answer implies what God is doing now to prevent death and destruction is a violation of free will.
2. Is there any evidence Satan cries foul play in response to God preventing death and destruction?
3. God regularly allows people to suffer the natural cause and effect consequences of their poor decisions. But there are also many, many times when He intervenes and prevents things from playing out naturally.

Quote:

T: Regarding the PP comment, there's no doubt that Satan is indirectly responsible for all effects of sin. Satan is "the author of sin, and all its results," which includes death, of course, as without sin there would be no death. However, the PP quote is not dealing with this, but is dealing with the idea that Moses and Aaron were agents of Satan. Note: ". . . declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men."

Assuming God withdrew His protection of forces which would cause an earthquake, and an earthquake resulted as a consequence, then one could hardly fairly accuse Moses and Aaron of being in cohoots with Satan.

I'm not sure I understand your interpretation of the PP quote. Are you saying they didn't attribute the judgments of God to Satan? In saying, "there's no doubt that Satan is indirectly responsible for all effects of sin", it sounds like you believe Satan is the one caused the ground to open up and swallow Korah and his companions.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/22/08 09:13 PM

PS - What does it say about the character of God that He buried and burned sinners alive? What kind of God would do such a thing - bury and burn people alive?

The eyes of all Israel were fixed upon Moses as they stood, in terror and expectation, awaiting the event. As he ceased speaking, the solid earth parted, and the rebels went down alive into the pit, with all that pertained to them, and "they perished from among the congregation." The people fled, self-condemned as partakers in the sin. {PP 400.5}

But the judgments were not ended. Fire flashing from the cloud consumed the two hundred and fifty princes who had offered incense. These men, not being the first in rebellion, were not destroyed with the chief conspirators. They were permitted to see their end, and to have an opportunity for repentance; but their sympathies were with the rebels, and they shared their fate. {PP 401.1}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/23/08 12:12 AM

Quote:

T: If by "more flattering" you mean "more flattering to God," I agree that the suggested interpretation that destruction comes when God withdraws His protection is more flattering to God.

M:Yes, it presents a flattering view of God. However, it is not the only means and method God uses to punish and destroy impenitent sinners.

This means you believe in a less flattering view of God. I agree with this.

Quote:

"To interpret all those accounts to mean" God employed the same means and method is what I'm objecting to.

Yes, we disagree regarding this. I see the principles described in GC, the first chapter, as being general principles, not to be limited to that one event. She writes a number of things in the chapter that bear this out. For example:

Quote:

Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty....In the fate of the chosen city we may behold the doom of a world that has rejected God's mercy and trampled upon His law. (GC 36)

Quote:

T: Since you recognize that there are times when this view is clearly the case, how can you then assert this paints are "pretty poor picture of God," given this is a view you hold yourself? (by which I mean, you hold this view to be correct some portion of the time).

I believe there are times when "circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit evil angels to cause death and destruction." But I do not agree with "the idea that God reluctantly, uncharacteristically does something that results in evil angels arbitrarily inflicting His children with death and destruction." I think this view "paints a pretty poor picture of God." Do you see the difference?

No, I don't see the point you're trying to make.

Btw, I have no problem agreeing with what you said here: "Circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit evil angels to cause death and destruction." I would make it broader and say it this way: "Circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit death and destruction to come upon those who have rejected His mercy." Is there anything in this statement, which is sticking very closely to how you expressed things, which you see as painting a poor picture of God?

Quote:

The first chapter of the GC deals with this. Basically, God needs to protect us from destruction, or else we wouldn't have the opportunity to express freedom of choice. However, God has to allow Satan the opportunity to present his case, or else his charges against God would be true.

Quote:

2. Is there any evidence Satan cries foul play in response to God preventing death and destruction?

Job.

Quote:

3. God regularly allows people to suffer the natural cause and effect consequences of their poor decisions. But there are also many, many times when He intervenes and prevents things from playing out naturally.

Agreed.

Quote:

No. I'm saying they were accusing Moses and Aaron of being in league with Satan, which is not a fair accusation, given that od withdrew His protection of forces which would cause an earthquake, and an earthquake resulted as a consequence.

Quote:

In saying, "there's no doubt that Satan is indirectly responsible for all effects of sin", it sounds like you believe Satan is the one caused the ground to open up and swallow Korah and his companions.

Not directly. If it weren't for Satan, there wouldn't be any earthquakes, or any other bad thing, because all bad things come as the result of sin. That was my point.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/23/08 12:13 AM

Quote:

PS - What does it say about the character of God that He buried and burned sinners alive? What kind of God would do such a thing - bury and burn people alive?

I think you should answer this, since you are the one who believes this is what God is like.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/23/08 01:28 AM

(I see Tom beat me to referencing Job

)

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Also, the quotes you posted did not address the Flood or the final conflagration.

I believe it did.
And since, even though I requoted and underlined it, you do not see it as such is probably why you made this statement:

Quote:

That is, none of their sins, none of their activities, none of their behaviors, etc, impacted or negated any of the laws that God was upholding to prevent a global flood from happening naturally.

Quote:

I do not think, though I cannot know for certain, that water would return to its pre-creation state if God were to cease preventing it from doing so.

Where did the water go when He separated it? Keep in mind, Ellen White says that the seas then were not as large as now.

Quote:

Plus, God has not changed His moral law.

Why? Why one and not the other?

Quote:

Nor do I think God changed the laws of nature.

But I thought you did say that.

Quote:

It's just that certain laws no longer apply because the conditions they applied to no longer exist

Water no longer seeks lowest point? Nothing need to be changed there. It did before. It does now.

Quote:

I also see no significant difference in God commanding holy angels, or permitting evil angels, to employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction.

I guess that is where we differ. The first couple of chapters of Job, I believe you would agree supports your idea there was no difference as to whether God is stretching forth His hand, or it was in Satan's hands.

I see a great difference. I'm not sure what your motivation of not seeing one is. You had asked for an inspired passage. I've quoted, requoted, and Tom has requoted it. "withdrawn", "protection", "holding in check", "restraint is removed". I don't know what more you need.

Why do you require your viewpoint of God? Do you remove the possibility exists of Tom's and my viewpoint? Would you be upset to find God doesn't directly causing death and destruction?

Quote:

Why does God reach a point where He is no longer willing to do whatever it takes to prevent death and destruction from happening?

Sounds like you are asking why do bad things happen to good people.
Which really means:
Why was satan allowed to make his choice?

Is that what you have been objecting to all along?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/23/08 04:57 PM

Quote:

M: I believe there are times when "circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit evil angels to cause death and destruction." But I do not agree with "the idea that God reluctantly, uncharacteristically does something that results in evil angels arbitrarily inflicting His children with death and destruction." I think this view "paints a pretty poor picture of God." Do you see the difference?

T: No, I don't see the point you're trying to make.

I think Mountain Man is saying that God doesn't reluctantly, uncharacteristically do something that results of evil angels inflicting death and destruction (which results in a poor picture of God), but that He willingly and characteristically permits or allows evil angels to do it, or if they won't, God will do it Himself -- but in "love" (which results in a good picture of God).

Sorry, but that's what I see MM saying. If he should help explain why he thinks that that is love, or why he requires that kind of picture of God, I may be able to understand his viewpoint better. But without that understanding, he is painting .... shall I say... a pretty poor picture?

Mountain Man, do you see a big contradiction here? Do you hate (maybe too strong of a word, but the first that comes to mind) God, but yet feel compelled to defend Him? I mean, I've seen God hating, atheistic evolutionists express similar views, if I explained your statement correctly. I hope I totally misunderstood you and need to take Tom's position of, "No, I don't see the point you're trying to make".

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/25/08 01:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

This means you're being less flattering than God.

Quote:

M: "To interpret all those accounts to mean" God employed the same means and method is what I'm objecting to.

T: Yes, we disagree regarding this. I see the principles described in GC, the first chapter, as being general principles, not to be limited to that one event. She writes a number of things in the chapter that bear this out. For example: "Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty....In the fate of the chosen city we may behold the doom of a world that has rejected God's mercy and trampled upon His law. (GC 36)

This insight in no way supports your idea that God has never employed any other means and methods other than the one described here to cause death and destruction.

Quote:

T: Since you recognize that there are times when this view is clearly the case, how can you then assert this paints are "pretty poor picture of God," given this is a view you hold yourself? (by which I mean, you hold this view to be correct some portion of the time).

M: I believe there are times when "circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit evil angels to cause death and destruction." But I do not agree with "the idea that God reluctantly, uncharacteristically does something that results in evil angels arbitrarily inflicting His children with death and destruction." I think this view "paints a pretty poor picture of God." Do you see the difference?

T: No, I don't see the point you're trying to make.

God does nothing reluctantly or uncharacteristically. God is not wishy-washy like that.

Quote:

My description is less flexible than the one you described. Yours allows for other reasons why death and destruction happens; whereas, mine states it happens specifically because of what Satan does. Neither one of these descriptions, however, paint an unfavorable picture of God - in my opinion.

Quote:

T: The Fifield quotes I've presented discuss this in detail. I don't have access to them right now. Three quick problems are:

1.This would not be honoring the free will choice of those who have rejected God.
2.This would not be fair to Satan, who would cry foul that he was never given the opportunity to present his case.
3.It would not be seen what the effects of sin are, if God never permitted bad things to result from bad moral decisions.

M:1. Your answer implies what God is doing now to prevent death and destruction is a violation of free will.

T: The first chapter of the GC deals with this. Basically, God needs to protect us from destruction, or else we wouldn't have the opportunity to express freedom of choice. However, God has to allow Satan the opportunity to present his case, or else his charges against God would be true.

We both agree God doesn't "have" to do anything. What He does He does because it is right and righteous. Satan was feeling pretty good about his chances of winning the GC until God pulled the plug and everyone, save eight, was destroyed in a Flood. Is there any evidence Satan cried, Foul play?

But you didn't address the issue I raised. If protecting sinners from the consequences of their sins would be a violation of their freedom at a certain point why wouldn't it be a violation of their freedom at every step of the way?

Quote:

M: 2. Is there any evidence Satan cries foul play in response to God preventing death and destruction?

T: Job.

I don't read in the book of Job where Satan cries, Foul play, because God is protecting him from death and destruction. It was God, not Satan, who brought up Job. Satan's complaint was just the opposite of what you said. He complained that Job loved and obeyed God because God blessed Him. Death and destruction did not happen until God gave Satan permission to afflict Job. Are you implying this is the death and destruction God was protecting Job from? If so, then such death and destruction was purely arbitrary.

Quote:

M: 3. God regularly allows people to suffer the natural cause and effect consequences of their poor decisions. But there are also many, many times when He intervenes and prevents things from playing out naturally.

T: Agreed.

Glad we can agree on something.

Quote:

T:Assuming God withdrew His protection of forces which would cause an earthquake, and an earthquake resulted as a consequence, then one could hardly fairly accuse Moses and Aaron of being in cohoots with Satan.

M:I'm not sure I understand your interpretation of the PP quote. Are you saying they didn't attribute the judgments of God to Satan?

T: No. I'm saying they were accusing Moses and Aaron of being in league with Satan, which is not a fair accusation, given that God withdrew His protection of forces which would cause an earthquake, and an earthquake resulted as a consequence.

Earthquake? Who said anything about an earthquake? Here's how it is described: As Moses ceased speaking, the earth opened and swallowed them up, and their tents, and all that pertained unto them. They went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from among the congregation. {4aSG 31.2}

The idea that these people and their stuff happened to be standing over a naturally occurring fault line, and that God ceased preventing it from naturally opening up and closing up long enough for them to be buried alive, seems rather far fetched and fanciful to me.

However, my question here concerns a different issue. It has to do with daring to attribute the judgments of God to Satan. Here's the quote again: 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 404.4}

Are you saying you agree that "they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan"? Are you saying you agree it was God, and not Satan, who did something that resulted in Korah and his comrades being buried and crushed alive in the earth? Is this what you meant when you wrote, "God withdrew His protection . . . and an earthquake resulted as a consequence."

Quote:

M: In saying, "there's no doubt that Satan is indirectly responsible for all effects of sin", it sounds like you believe Satan is the one caused the ground to open up and swallow Korah and his companions.

T: Not directly. If it weren't for Satan, there wouldn't be any earthquakes, or any other bad thing, because all bad things come as the result of sin. That was my point.

I don't understand what you're trying to saying here. Are you saying Satan did not cause the ground to open up and bury and crush them alive? If he didn't cause it to happen, who or what did? Did Korah sin in such a way that his sin caused the earth to open up and kill him?

In the following passage Ellen says God employs the forces of nature to do His will, to serve His purpose. It was God's will and purpose, therefore, to bury and crush Korah and his comrades alive in the earth. Listen:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. . . These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?" {3SG 80}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/25/08 01:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: What does it say about the character of God that He buried and burned sinners alive? What kind of God would do such a thing - bury and burn people alive?

T: I think you should answer this, since you are the one who believes this is what God is like.

What does it say about the character of God that He buried and burned sinners alive? He is a God mercy and justice.

What kind of God would do such a thing - bury and burn people alive? A God of mercy and justice.

Are you implying you do not believe God does such things? Are you saying God does not bury or burn people alive? If not God, then who or what buried and burned them alive? Why didn't God protect them from being buried and burned alive? Why didn't He withdraw their breath of life just before being buried and burned so that their pain and suffering was less severe and horrible?

PS - I am referring to the cases of Korah and the 250 priests mentioned above on this thread.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/25/08 01:42 AM

Kland, I am sorry you are struggling with my view of God. But rather than lamenting what I believe, I would prefer it if you would simply explain what you believe. For example, how do you explain the fact God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? How do you explain the fact God buried and burned the sinners named above?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/25/08 02:39 AM

Quote:

What?

You said the view I've been presenting is "more flattering," and it's a view you agree with, some of the time. Since you only agree with it some of the time, the rest of the time you believe in a less flattering view of God. This is the point I made. I don't know what point you are making.

Quote:

T: Yes, we disagree regarding this. I see the principles described in GC, the first chapter, as being general principles, not to be limited to that one event. She writes a number of things in the chapter that bear this out. For example: "Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty....In the fate of the chosen city we may behold the doom of a world that has rejected God's mercy and trampled upon His law. (GC 36)

M:This insight in no way supports your idea that God has never employed any other means and methods other than the one described here to cause death and destruction.

Yes it does. Here's your approach:

1.If the Bible says God did something "bad," then God did it.
2.Unless the SOP says otherwise.

I don't think this is a viable approach. To give examples of this, you wouldn't know that when Scripture says that God sent fiery serpents, that this really means that God withdrew His protection from the serpents that were already there. Or when Scripture says that God would destroy Jerusalem, this means that God withdrew His protection from them, as described in GC the first chapter. So you allow the SOP to interpret Scripture for you; without it, you're lost to know what was happening in Scripture.

What I believe is that the SOP communicated *principles* to us, so that *we*, armed with these principles, can interpret the Scriptures, without needing to rely on her for a case by case explanation of what's going on.

There's two approaches one can take, a principle-based one, or a case by case one.

Here's how what I cited from the SOP supports the principle-based approach. She wrote, "Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty....In the fate of the chosen city we may behold the doom of a world that has rejected God's mercy and trampled upon His law."

This means that what happened in Jerusalem serves as a pattern for other events where certain punishment falls upon the guilty, and, in particular, as a pattern for the last day events.

Quote:

God does nothing reluctantly or uncharacteristically. God is not wishy-washy like that.

God's being reluctant to destroy is not a case of His being "wishy-washy" but of His love for us.

Quote:

How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. (Hosea 11:8)

This eloquently describes God's reluctance.

Quote:

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.(GC 627)

This also.

Quote:

T: Btw, I have no problem agreeing with what you said here: "Circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit evil angels to cause death and destruction." I would make it broader and say it this way: "Circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit death and destruction to come upon those who have rejected His mercy." Is there anything in this statement, which is sticking very closely to how you expressed things, which you see as painting a poor picture of God?

My description is less flexible than the one you described. Yours allows for other reasons why death and destruction happens; whereas, mine states it happens specifically because of what Satan does. Neither one of these descriptions, however, paint an unfavorable picture of God - in my opinion.

Obviously I'm aware of the fact that what I wrote is different than what you wrote, which I made known when I said, "I would make it broader and say it this way".

You didn't answer my question, which is if you see the broader way I put things as painting a poor picture of God. That is, this: "Circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit death and destruction to come upon those who have rejected His mercy."

Quote:

But you didn't address the issue I raised. If protecting sinners from the consequences of their sins would be a violation of their freedom at a certain point why wouldn't it be a violation of their freedom at every step of the way?

If God did not protect sinners from the consequences of their sins, they would die immediately, and not be able to choose to repent. God acts in a way to maximize freedom. He gives people the opportunity to choose, in as much as it is possible for Him to do so, between good and evil.

Regarding Job, I see the book of Job as dealing with the issue you raised in regards to Satan. If you don't see that, then we disagree.

Regarding Korah, here's what the Columbia encyclopedia has to say:

Quote:

1 Levite leader, with Dathan and Abiram, of the unsuccessful revolt in the desert against the exclusive priesthood of the Aaronic family and against the leadership of Moses; the rebels were consumed by fire and earthquake.

A google query of "Korah earthquake" turned up over 9,000 hits.

You seemed surprised that I would have such a thought, but it's actually quite a common thought.

Regarding the rebels, they claimed Moses and Aaron were acting as agents of Satan. They weren't. They were acting as agents of God, who withdrew His protection from Korah, resulting in His death.

Regarding the rest of what you wrote, I said this:

Quote:

T: Not directly. If it weren't for Satan, there wouldn't be any earthquakes, or any other bad thing, because all bad things come as the result of sin. That was my point.

I don't see what's difficult to understand about this. No, I'm not saying that Satan directly caused an earthquake to occur, as you can note by the words, "Not directly."

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/27/08 08:28 PM

Tom, when you quote uninspired sources to prove your point it does nothing to impress me to agree with you. Quoting such sources is a waste of time. It serves no purpose whatsoever. So why bother?

Also, you have yet to explain why God commanded His chosen people to kill sinners. You can argue all day long against what I believe but it is not the same as explaining what you believe. Don't you think it is time to explain it? In particular, please explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Thank you.

PS - Please don't tell me you've explained it dozens of times and then expect me to figure it out. Just spell it out clearly here and now. Thank you.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/27/08 09:12 PM

Quote:

Tom, when you quote uninspired sources to prove your point it does nothing to impress me to agree with you.

By reading and understanding the principles being communicated, a person might be led to understand the truth more clearly. That's my goal in citing the thing said. It's not by way of authority that I'm trying to convince you of something, but by way of truth, truth expressed as ideas.

Quote:

Quoting such sources is a waste of time. It serves no purpose whatsoever. So why bother?

If God has communicated truth to others, and others have communicated this truth to us, it should serve a purpose. It shouldn't be "a waste of time."

Truth is truth. It doesn't matter who says it. The Holy Spirit enables us to see and recognize truth.

Regarding your other question, I cited "The Ever-Loving Father." As I stated, I could not explain the principles better than that.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/29/08 04:18 AM

Whatever!!! I'm not going to beg you any more to state your position plainly. Game over!

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/29/08 07:28 AM

Ok, MM. As I stated, I can't explain it more clearly than what I provided for you.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/29/08 04:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

I would prefer it if you would simply explain what you believe.

I have. And I have failed. Or you have rejected it. Either way, repeating what I've already said, would not be of benefit to you. If you are unable to see a clearly explained statement from Ellen White, how can we move on to more complex topics? Since I cannot be a benefit to you, I am trying to benefit from you. Others share your view and whether it is due to some unmet need or other motivation, I wish to understand why they, and you, take the view of God you do.

Quote:

Mercy, mercy!

I went to a public school and some of the required readings were "1984" and "Brave New World". By any chance have you read those books?

God says He killed Saul. I say that you need to understand more and compare texts which say Saul fell on his sword. God killed Saul in that he didn't protect Saul anymore. But, did God directly kill Saul? You may say yes, or some other explanation. However, how do you explain the following?

From the afore quoted GC quote, pages 35-37:

Quote:

Read the paragraph, in context, and tell me what you think Ellen White is saying here in those pages.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 12/29/08 10:33 PM

Quote:

kland: I have. And I have failed. Or you have rejected it. Either way, repeating what I've already said, would not be of benefit to you. If you are unable to see a clearly explained statement from Ellen White, how can we move on to more complex topics? Since I cannot be a benefit to you, I am trying to benefit from you. Others share your view and whether it is due to some unmet need or other motivation, I wish to understand why they, and you, take the view of God you do.

could i suggest that at first it can seem as pure heresy? i know when i first heard something along this line, given my mentality and background, it sounded good but so alien....

it is not something i studied into but picked up here and there. for instance, in reading romans this hit me:

Quote:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

this told me the homosexuals life was none of my business, and i didnt need to go around judging and condemning him, not that i was particularly inclined to do so, anyway, but i was hearing so much about them.

then i got lbm.orgs "lift Him up" series because im into prophecy, and read the "wrath of God" articles, which pointed at the verses that specifically stated how Gods wrath=God leaving people to the consequences of their decisions, regardless of how many times He said He did such and such. but, still i walked with care so-to-speak.

does God kill sometimes, or never? i dont really know. but i can see why a person would want to be careful in believing He never does, given the texts that would indicate He does without specific texts to the contrary in each situation.

then to make matters worse, because i am so used to a different way of thinking i can completely forget what i used to believe.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/29/08 10:54 PM

teresaq, thanks for sharing Romans 1:27, the part in red. This was new for me. Very nice thought!

Quote:

Then to make matters worse, because i am so used to a different way of thinking i can completely forget what i used to believe.

Shades of Piaget! Yes, this is indeed a challenge. When our paradigm shifts, it changes how we perceive everything, making it difficult to remember how we used to perceive things. One of the more challenging things in trying to explain concepts is to get ourselves in somebody else's head, so to speak; that is, to understand their paradigm.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/30/08 06:14 PM

Kland, please hear me. Yes, I agree there are times when God withdraws His protection and permits sinners to suffer the consequences of their sins. But there are also other means and methods He employs to accomplish His will and purpose. For example, He commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Do you agree?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/30/08 06:20 PM

Tom, your humane hunter analogy fails to explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Your unwillingness to address this issue is what drove me to the "whatever" episode expressed above.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 12/30/08 10:35 PM

out of curiousity my brothers, would either of you know how and when this got derailed from the "covenants"?

i only looked at a couple of the first posts and dont know how it "ends" but it certainly looks like something we dont really get.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/30/08 11:15 PM

Quote:

I only looked at a couple of the first posts and dont know how it "ends" but it certainly looks like something we dont really get.

Ellen White described Waggoner's view of the covenant as "clear as sunlight," which has been my impression as well. Here are a couple of places he discusses it: http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT04RedeemedfromtheCurse.htm

Here's a paragraph:

Quote:

Also: http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT05TheAdoptionofSons.htm

A good place to start reading would be from where it says "These Are the Two Covenants."

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/30/08 11:17 PM

MM, the analogy does not fail to address the issue. I'm sorry you're not seeing this. I'm also sorry I cannot explain it any more clearly than the story does.

However, there are many other topics to discuss.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/30/08 11:52 PM

In relation to God commanding Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, the following passage is insightful:

If the one tried for murder were proved guilty, no atonement or ransom could rescue him. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Genesis 9:6. "Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death." "Thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die," was the command of God; "the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." Numbers 35:31, 33; Exodus 21:14. The safety and purity of the nation demanded that the sin of murder be severely punished. Human life, which God alone could give, must be sacredly guarded. {PP 516.2}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/31/08 12:03 AM

Tom, in light of the quote I posted above, I do not see how your humane hunter analogy explains why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. The father in your story taught his son, against his wishes, how to hunt animals in the most humane way possible. The principle here seems to involve the father teaching his son how to do something that goes against his will but is not a sin in and of itself. Are you implying, therefore, that God taught the COI how to kill people in the most humane manner possible, even though it went against His will, but that is was not a sin in and of itself?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/31/08 12:24 AM

Had the COI followed God's desires, they would never have killed anyone, just as the lad in the hunter story would not have hunted had he followed his father's wishes. God did not arm the Israelites. It was not God's wish to conquer the Holy Land by military force. We have a couple of examples where the people allowed God to fight their battles for them, and in these instances, not a single Israelite died. Had they always exercised faith, no Israelite would ever have died. Instead destruction would have come upon their enemies (provided they didn't repent) along the lines of GC chapter 1, in a similar manner to how Israel's enemies were defeated when they did trust God.

The point of the hunter story has to do with how it would have sounded to a neighbor to hear the father explaining to the son how to hunt. It would have sounded like the father was in favor of hunting. Similarly, without knowing the details, it would seem that God is in favor of getting what you want by violence, since there are so many stories of this type in the OT. However, God's words and actions are being taken out of context to get this idea. God's words and actions, His true feelings and thoughts, are best understood as revealed by Jesus Christ. Through Him we see what God is really like.

There is an apparent contradiction between the God of the OT and Jesus Christ's revelation of God while hear in the flesh. Anyone can see this. The OT stories present God as violent, whereas Jesus was not only non violent, He was opposed to violence. So how do we resolve this apparent contradiction?

One way would be to assume that Jesus Christ really did have a violent streak to Him, just like God does, but because of circumstances that violent part was hidden. In this case, Jesus did not present a full revelation of God, but a partial one, where certain actions God does were not revealed, because of circumstances. This looks to be the approach you have chosen to take. To understand God, we need to supplement the picture of God that Jesus presented with what we learn about God from the OT. Many people feel this way.

Another approach to take is that we have not properly understood what was really happening in the OT. God is presented as actively doing things by inspiration that He merely allowed to happen. We know this happened some of the time. Perhaps it happened much, much more frequently than a simple reading of the OT would suggest, but which a reading of the OT in the light of Jesus Christ's revelation of God would suggest. Also the analogy of the father of the hunter son can help explain some difficult to understand passages.

But overall we're dealing with a difference of conviction and approach. One can have the conviction that Scripture, as we understand it on the surface, should be our foundation. We should allow that to supplement our view of God, based on what Jesus Christ revealed. In this approach, our view of God is pliable, but our understanding of Scripture is not. This view allows God to be different than Jesus Christ (drastically different), but has the advantage of our understanding of Scripture, nor our paradigm, having to change.

The other approach would have our paradigm shift, and our understanding of Scripture change. We would perceive, for example, that much of what happened in Scripture is along the lines presented by GC chapter One, even when not explicitly stated. This is a key point.

This has the advantage of allowing our view of God to be exactly that which Jesus Christ, while in the flesh, revealed.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/31/08 12:29 AM

Teresaq, this aspect of the OC is being discussed at this point because we were unable to agree on the other aspects that have been discussed. Of course, this aspect of the discussion is no better off than the rest of the discussion. Oh well. We do not study together to prove a point or to persuade the other guy to believe like we do; instead, we study together because it helps us express what we have learned, and what makes sense to us.

There are several covenants mentioned in the Bible: 1) The Everlasting Covenant, 2) The Old Covenant, and 3) The New Covenant. Of course, there are also the Adamic, Noatic (aka Noahic), and the Abrahamic covenants. What do you know about it?

From what I read about it, the EC and the NC are, in the context of the GC, essentially the same covenant, namely, that God promises to pardon our sin, empower us to love and obey Him, eliminate sin and sinners, and to restore paradise lost. The blood of Jesus ratifies the covenant. The OC, on the other hand, was implemented in response to Israel's failure to comply with the conditions of the EC/NC. It was designed to teach them the truth about the EC/NC and to how meet the conditions outlined therein. The OC was ratified by the blood of animals. The terms and requirements unique to the OC ended when Jesus died on the cross. Exactly what we are still obligated by law to obey is often hotly debated. Nevertheless, people who experience the awesome miracle of rebirth this side of the cross are born again under the terms and conditions of the EC/NC. What those are are also debated.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/31/08 01:47 AM

MM, if you reject the foundational basis, how can we move on?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 12/31/08 01:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

The other approach would have our paradigm shift, and our understanding of Scripture change.

Tom, I think that is most helpful to me in understanding the problem!

Some people view their understanding of the Scriptures are right, and then fit God to match those views.

I suppose a corollary could be made with evolutionists.

I'm not sure what to do with it, but I'm starting to see why some can reject something which seems to me to be so clear, plain, and explicitly stated.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/31/08 04:26 AM

Originally Posted By: kland

MM, if you reject the foundational basis, how can we move on?

You have yet to establish what is foundational. Nowhere does Ellen tell us to interpret everything she wrote about everything else in light of the way she explains why and what God did in response to the Jews in 70 AD. For example, God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. If we limit our understanding of these particular events to mean God withdrew His protection and gave them over to their unbridled passions and over to Satan's unrestrained control, we would be forced to conclude something like - In this case, "Moses" is symbolic of Satan.

Do you see the problem? How do you reconcile the fact the Bible says God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer with your view of how God punishes sinners (assuming you believe all the places in the Bible that describe God killing or commanding others to kill must be interpreted to mean He withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature or the forces of Satan to cause destruction and death)?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 12/31/08 04:54 AM

You ask what's foundational. The Scriptures teach that Christ is the foundation. That's the answer. Not the Scriptures, not Ellen White, but Christ is the foundation. The Scriptures are valuable because they lead us to Christ, and tell us about Him. ("You search the Scriptures because you think in them you have life, but they are they which testify of Me.) Similarly the Spirit of Prophecy is the lesser light pointing to the greater light.

So once we learn what Christ is like, we interpret everything else about God according to that knowledge. This is one way of going about things. This seems to agree with what Scripture teaches (e.g. John 8, already quoted, or Heb. 1:1-3), what Jesus Himself said (John 8, John 17), and what Ellen White said, "All that man can know or needs to know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.' John 1:18." (2T 816)

Another way of going about things would be to say that Christ is not the foundation to understanding what God is like. Using this approach we would understand Jesus Christ to be a partial revelation of God, to be supplemented by what we learn in studying the OT.

Under approach 1, we allow our understanding of Christ to mold our understanding of the Scriptures, including the OT, and what they say about God. Under approach 2, we allow our understanding of the OT Scripture to mold what we understand about God, and add that to Christ's revelation.

The question is, do we allow Christ's revelation of God to stand as complete, so that it is the bedrock of our understanding of God. Or do we assign it the role of partial revelation, to be added to other things.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/31/08 04:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Tom, lest ye forget, let me remind you that I truly believe Jesus demonstrated the awesome attributes of God's kingdom and character in an unsurpassed way. And, I wish we could leave it at that. However, you insist it means we must interpret all the places in the Bible where it says God killed or commanded others to kill to mean that God freely forgives, that He turns the other cheek, that He goes the extra mile, that He never resorts to force or violence, that it actually means He withdrew His protection and gave them over to their own fierce passions and over to the unrestrained control of Satan.

Therefore, I feel compelled to present an alternate view, a view that does not require us to rely on interpretations which deny the obvious meaning of the words employed. "The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed." {GC 598.3} Ellen's words are so simple that even a child can understand them. "As spoken by the heavenly agencies, the words are severe in their simplicity; and I try to put the thoughts into such simple language that a child can understand every word uttered. The words of someone else would not rightly represent me." {3SM 92.1}

For example, consider the following passage:

If the one tried for murder were proved guilty, no atonement or ransom could rescue him. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Genesis 9:6. "Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death." "Thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die," was the command of God; "the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." Numbers 35:31, 33; Exodus 21:14. The safety and purity of the nation demanded that the sin of murder be severely punished. Human life, which God alone could give, must be sacredly guarded. {PP 516.2} End quote.

Tom, in light of this quote, I do not see how your humane hunter analogy explains why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. The father in your story taught his son, against his will and wishes, how to hunt animals. Are you implying, therefore, that God felt compelled to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, even though it went against His will and wishes? If not, please explain why. Thank you.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 12/31/08 05:22 AM

I don't recall if you said before, but I'm curious as to how you would interpret the following verse regarding Saul:
1 Ch 10:14 ...Therefore the LORD slew him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

From the afore-afore quoted GC quote, pages 35-37:

Quote:

Read the paragraph, in context, and tell me what you think Ellen White is saying here in those pages.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/02/09 06:40 PM

Originally Posted By: teresaq

T: out of curiousity my brothers, would either of you know how and when this got derailed from the "covenants"? i only looked at a couple of the first posts and dont know how it "ends" but it certainly looks like something we dont really get.

M: Teresaq, this aspect of the OC is being discussed at this point because we were unable to agree on the other aspects that have been discussed. Of course, this aspect of the discussion is no better off than the rest of the discussion. Oh well. We do not study together to prove a point or to persuade the other guy to believe like we do; instead, we study together because it helps us express what we have learned, and what makes sense to us.

There are several covenants mentioned in the Bible: 1) The Everlasting Covenant, 2) The Old Covenant, and 3) The New Covenant. Of course, there are also the Adamic, Noatic (aka Noahic), and the Abrahamic covenants. What do you know about it?

From what I read about it, the EC and the NC are, in the context of the GC, essentially the same covenant, namely, that God promises to pardon our sin, empower us to love and obey Him, eliminate sin and sinners, and to restore paradise lost. The blood of Jesus ratifies the covenant. The OC, on the other hand, was implemented in response to Israel's failure to comply with the conditions of the EC/NC. It was designed to teach them the truth about the EC/NC and to how meet the conditions outlined therein. The OC was ratified by the blood of animals. The terms and requirements unique to the OC ended when Jesus died on the cross. Exactly what we are still obligated by law to obey is often hotly debated. Nevertheless, people who experience the awesome miracle of rebirth this side of the cross are born again under the terms and conditions of the EC/NC. What those are are also debated.

T: thanks brothers. im not real sure how i state things that gives the impression i was asking anyone to "teach" me anything.

i thought it would be understood that i meant we dont really understand the point egw is trying to get across to us about the new/old covenant.

but i understand there is an attempt at ironing out a particular point.

i am strongly tempted to say, "aint gonna happen." maybe if it was put aside for a minute and reapproached later with fresher minds?

Teresaq, please accept my apology for “teaching” you. When you asked, “would either of you know how and when this got derailed from the covenants” I didn’t realize you said this so that you could point out that there are certain of aspects of the covenants we really don’t understand and that it “ain’t gonna happen”, so take a break and come back to it later on. Thank you for the advice. You will be happy to learn we have done just that over the last 4 fours since this thread first started. In my clumsy way I tried to explain why the thread has taken this turn, but I see that I only managed to offend you. Again, I apologize for teaching.

I know how frustrating it can be to sit on the sidelines and watch people go back and forth seemingly making no headway. When that happens to me I just stop watching and leave the players to themselves. If they are content to continue studying, and they don’t mind making little or no progress, then that is certainly their choice. That’s how I deal with it. People are different. Not everyone is satisfied in the same way. I have found that me telling them they aren’t getting anywhere is unfruitful. Besides, I would hate to interfere if the Holy Spirit is indeed working with them.

I don’t know if this way of handling things will work for you or not, but the nice thing about this forum is no one is required to read each thread and every post. You can pick and choose. Happy hunting.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/02/09 08:18 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

M: Do you see the problem? How do you reconcile the fact the Bible says God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer . . . ?

K: Tom has been most patient in continually answering that. I know of nothing more to add to it.

Please point me to where Tom has explained why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Is it on a different forum? I have been asking Tom for months to explain this, but so far he has refused. On one occasion he promised to explain it on condition I agree with him on a couple other key points, which apparently did not happen. I don't remember what they are now. So again, if you know how Tom explains why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, please fill me in. Of course make sure you have his permission first.

By the way, why do you think God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? I would be very interested in learning what you believe. I hope you don't leave me in the dark like Tom does.

Quote:

M: Therefore, I feel compelled to present an alternate view, a view that does not require us to rely on interpretations which deny the obvious meaning of the words employed.

K: I don't recall if you said before, but I'm curious as to how you would interpret the following verse regarding Saul: 1 Ch 10:14 Therefore the LORD slew him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

Yes, I have explained this one before, and I am more than happy to share it again. Saul filled up his cup of woe and Jesus did not protect him in the heat of battle. An arrow wounded him and he killed himself rather than be captured and tortured. Jesus claims responsibility for Saul's death. He used His enemies to accomplish His will and purpose.

Ellen puts it this way: "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}

Quote:

EGW: We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (GC 35-37)

K: Read the paragraph, in context, and tell me what you think Ellen White is saying here in those pages.

I can't tell you how many times I've read and researched GC Chapter One at Tom's request. What a sad story. I makes me feel rotten to think we do things that force God to abandon us to our unbridled fierce passions and to the unrestrained control of Satan. You know God hates having to do it. He stands back and weeps like no other can. He labored long and hard to woo and win the Jews to Jesus, but they would have none of Him.

But this isn't the only thing God has been forced to do. Since the Fall of man, God has had to employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. He has also had to command holy angels to cause death and destruction. Again, here's how Ellen saw it:

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2} End quote

Again, Jesus claims responsibility. It matters not how death and destruction happens, as sovereign of the Universe, as Lord and Master, as King of kings, Jesus claims responsibility. Nothing happens without His permission. Satan is not at liberty to cause death and destruction according to his will and whim. He is answerable to Jesus. He cannot so much as lift a finger against us or our planet without the approval of Jesus. When sinners fill up their cup of woe, Jesus decides how, when, and where they suffer and die. Nothing is left to sin, Satan, or chance. Jesus is in total control of the outcome.

What is your take on it?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/02/09 09:18 PM

I'm not wishing to distract or impede your conversation with kland, but I have a couple of questions/comments.

kland has my permission to fill you in on my explanation of Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, or anything else he wishes to comment on that I've explained. The difference in perception here is interesting. You feel that I've left you "in the dark," where kland feels I've been most patient in continually answering your question.

Regarding your comment on Saul, "He used His enemies to accomplish His will and purpose;" is it your understanding that God desired that Saul be killed?

Similarly in regards to the last paragraph, is it your understanding that all suffering that happens takes place because this is what God desires?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/02/09 09:22 PM

Originally Posted By: teresaq

Did He have options? If He did, why did He chose to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If God went with the best option, what does that say about all the other options? Does it imply they were not as good? I doubt they would have been better, otherwise God would have went with one of them instead. From what I know about God, it is His nature and character to do the right and righteous thing. The fact He commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer is evidence it was the one and only right and righteous thing to do. It also implies if there were any other viable options they fell short of the glory of God. Does that makes sense to you?

Quote:

i have children. i dont know if you or tom do. i dont care how bad anyone of them could get. i dont care what they might possibly do. they are still my children. i carried them for nine months and went through labor to bring them into this world. if one of them did something that had to bring the death penalty for the sake of the other two, you dont think everything inside of me would have preferred some other solution? that the decision would go against my "will and wishes"?

I have three children and six grandchildren. Yeah, I know I am abundantly blessed. Thank you Jesus! And, yes, like you, I would prefer a better solution if one them committed a crime punishable by death. I imagine Ted Bundy's mother feels the same way. In the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, God obviously handled it in a godly way. He opted for the one and only best punishment. He is too wise and too good to err. Of course He wishes things would have played out differently, that is, that they wouldn't have committed crimes punishable by death, but it His was will and wish, given the circumstances, to do the one and only right thing - no matter how much it hurt Him. God did what was right and best for everyone concerned.

Quote:

Teresaq, I take it you quoted Tom here to demonstrate what makes sense to you. But this insight, though it is good, does not explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. If you think it does, then please explain it to me. Thank you.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/02/09 10:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: Tom, lest ye forget, let me remind you that I truly believe Jesus demonstrated the awesome attributes of God's kingdom and character in an unsurpassed way. And, I wish we could leave it at that. However, you insist it means we must interpret all the places in the Bible where it says God killed or commanded others to kill to mean that God freely forgives, that He turns the other cheek, that He goes the extra mile, that He never resorts to force or violence, that it actually means He withdrew His protection and gave them over to their own fierce passions and over to the unrestrained control of Satan.

T: Not quite, but pretty close! I agree with the part in italics. The underlined part I would put like this: "and gave them over the to results of their choice." What those results are need not be limited to the two things you mentioned.

I'm glad I'm getting closer to understanding what you believe. But I must admit I’m still uncertain how you arrive at your conclusions. For example, in light of all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, in what way do they demonstrate that God:

1. Freely forgives
2. Turns the other cheek
3. Goes the extra mile
4. Never resorts to force or violence

Also, besides these incidents demonstrating that God eventually gives sinners over to their unbridled fierce passions and over to the unrestrained control of Satan, what are some other things that happened in consequence of sinners filling up their cup of woe and God giving them up?

In cases where sinners fill up the cup of woe, God employs many and varied ways to punish them. He tailors the punishment to fit the crime. There is nothing generic about what God does.

I don't understand why you think God does these things. You perceive God as capable of being the way you present Him as being, which I see as impossible, for the reason that He would not be acting in accordance with how Jesus Christ revealed Him to be, how Scripture and Ellen White describe Him of being, or in accordance with love.

Quote:

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. (1 Cor. 13)

In the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, the description says that the Jews forged their own fetters, that they chose Satan as their leader, that they caused God to withdraw from them, and yet you *still* express what happened in terms of God's doing something to them to punish them. I don't see how she could possibly express something in a way that would have you see God as not being responsible for what fell upon them.

It seems to me that if, even in this circumstance, where she uses the strongest possible language that it was not God doing these things but Satan, that you *still* see God as punishing them and causing what happened to happen that there would be any circumstance where you wouldn't ascribe these things to God. So let me ask my question in a different way. Can you name a circumstance where suffering comes upon someone who rejects God that is not a result of God's actively willing that result to come upon them? By the phrase "actively willing," I'm distinguishing this from the idea that God "permits a desire He would prefer did not happen," which is what I believe God does when He punishes those who reject Him.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 01/03/09 12:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: teresaq

whether, "God would have preferred handling the situation differently", and "did He have options" isnt really in the same line of thought.

we forget that we understand God and the bible according to our fallen human nature. i know that is true for myself. we read both, unknowingly, according to that limited nature. i have read the old testament numerous times and got it pretty well down and it changed my view of God. but still, in reading an article by someone certain bible verses were pointed out that i had overlooked and not seen the significance of them. seeing the importance of those verses changed my thinking even more. no matter how much we know or how far we have come, there is still much we overlook.

i realize you already know that.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/03/09 12:51 AM

Quote:

No matter how much we know or how far we have come, there is still much we overlook.

Very much agreed. I've read Waggoner's "The Everlasting Covenant," whose theme to quite a large extent could be summarized as, "The Gospel in the Books of Moses," where Waggoner would make some claim, that the verse said such and such, and I would think, "No way!," go and look, and sure enough, it says what Waggoner claimed.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/04/09 09:55 PM

Originally Posted By: teresaq

M: The father in your story taught his son, against his will and wishes, how to hunt animals. Are you implying, therefore, that God felt compelled to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, even though it went against His will and wishes? If not, please explain why. Thank you.

t: hi mm, is it possible that God would have preferred handling the situation in a different way?

M: Did He have options? If He did, why did He chose to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If God went with the best option, what does that say about all the other options? Does it imply they were not as good? I doubt they would have been better, otherwise God would have went with one of them instead. From what I know about God, it is His nature and character to do the right and righteous thing. The fact He commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer is evidence it was the one and only right and righteous thing to do. It also implies if there were any other viable options they fell short of the glory of God. Does that makes sense to you?

t: whether, "God would have preferred handling the situation differently", and "did He have options" isnt really in the same line of thought.

True. Thank you for pointing it out. I'm not the sharpest the tool in the shed. At any rate, did you agree with the insight I shared above, namely, this one:

In the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, God obviously handled it in a godly way. He opted for the one and only best punishment. He is too wise and too good to err. Of course He wishes things would have played out differently, that is, that they wouldn't have committed crimes punishable by death, but it was His will and wish, given the circumstances, to do the one and only right thing - no matter how much it hurt Him. God did what was right and best for everyone concerned.

Quote:

t: we forget that we understand God and the bible according to our fallen human nature. i know that is true for myself. we read both, unknowingly, according to that limited nature. i have read the old testament numerous times and got it pretty well down and it changed my view of God. but still, in reading an article by someone certain bible verses were pointed out that i had overlooked and not seen the significance of them. seeing the importance of those verses changed my thinking even more. no matter how much we know or how far we have come, there is still much we overlook. i realize you already know that.

Right, hanging out with Jesus today is going to make me an entirely different person tomorrow, thus, I am going to see things in the Bible I didn't see before. I love it! Thank you Jesus!

But I'm still interested in learning what makes sense to you today as it relates to the following question - Why did God command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If you think you have already answered this question, then please restate it here so I don't have to spend time searching for it. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/04/09 10:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

You didn’t answer my question. Or, is this a cryptic way of saying all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, do not demonstrate the four things named above?

Also, are you saying the OT does not fully reveal the character and kingdom of God? If so, why, then, do you think Jesus commanded people to read it? “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” Listen s Ellen elaborates:

The Old Testament was all the Scripture then in existence; but it was not written merely for the ancients; it was for all ages and for all people. Jesus would have the teachers of His doctrine diligently search the Old Testament for that light which establishes His identity as the Messiah foretold in prophecy, and reveals the nature of His mission to the world. The Old and the New Testament are inseparable, for both are the teachings of Christ. The doctrine of the Jews, who accept only the Old Testament, is not unto salvation, since they reject the Saviour whose life and ministry was a fulfillment of the law and the prophecies. And the doctrine of those who discard the Old Testament is not unto salvation, because it rejects that which is direct testimony of Christ. Skeptics begin with discounting upon the Old Testament, and it takes but another step to deny the validity of the New, and thus both are rejected. {5BC 1094.1}

Quote:

M: Also, besides these incidents demonstrating that God eventually gives sinners over to their unbridled fierce passions and over to the unrestrained control of Satan, what are some other things that happened in consequence of sinners filling up their cup of woe and God giving them up?

T: I just mentioned a whole list of things, like yesterday.

Are you referring to the fact God also employed the forces of nature to cause death and disease and destruction in consequence of sin? If so, then it sounds like we are in agreement that God does not always leave it up to Satan to accomplish His “will and purpose”, that there are times when He takes matters into His own hands.

Quote:

M: Regarding my understanding of Ellen’s use of the word “pardon” in her graphic description of Lucifer’s rebellion in heaven, I would like to say she was describing a highly unusual, very abnormal situation. Nothing like that had ever happened before. There was no precedence to guide her. Never before had a high ranking, sinless angel, who knew God so well that there was nothing more God could to recommend His love more fully, deceived himself into believing lies about the character and kingdom of God. Who wouldn’t be at a loss for words?

T: Regarding Ellen White's use of the word "pardon," I have no idea why you think she was at a loss of words, or why she used the word "pardon" to mean anything different than "pardon." Similarly for "author," "repentance," or "sin."

Other examples could be given. You do this routinely. And it isn't really my intent to criticize you for doing this, as everyone comes across passages which say just what they want, and others which don't, so everyone has the same challenge.

For example, you quote the paragraph in the GC about the same power being exercised by holy angels when God commands as by evil angels when God permits, and don't mention the paragraphs that force is not a principle of God's government, that God does not overcome rebellion by force, that all man can know about God was revealed by Christ, and so forth. On the other hand, I don't mention this one paragraph in GC, but bring out the points I wish to. I realize that this is a difficult paragraph for those who hold to the position I espouse. OTOH, you don't seem to recognize the difficulties you have to face. You seem to view your actions differently than mine. I don't see this. I've never claimed that a common word like "sin" or "pardon" or "author" doesn't mean what it normally means. I haven't sought to resolve difficulties in this way.

So you're hardly in the place to accuse those who disagree with you of ignoring the "obvious meaning" of words Ellen White uses. Anyway, back to resolving difficulties. It should be clear that when there are things which seem to favor one view, and things which seem to favor another, it's necessary to do some reconciliation to make the difficult passages "fit" with the easy ones, depending on one's perspective. In the issues we have been discussing, it seems to me that the way I'm arguing is at least as viable, in terms of what the text is saying, as what you suggest. What decides the issue for me is what a given position says in regards to God's character. Does God come out looking like Jesus Christ if I choose to look at things this way instead of that?

Nicely put, Tom. I really appreciate how you stated it. However, I would like to say I have integrated what Ellen wrote about force and what she wrote about punishment. The purpose of punishment is not to force sinners to obey Him or to do anything else; instead, it is out of respect for and in obedience to the just and loving requirements of law and justice. Justice requires God to execute justice and judgment upon sinners. Death must happen in consequence of sin. Not to quell rebellion, not to coerce compliance, not to enforce obedience, but to uphold the honor and integrity of law and order. This speaks very well of God. It makes FMAs feel safe and secure knowing God values and enforces law and order.

Quote:

M: You seem to be hinting that their perverted desires forced God, against His will and desire, to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, that His only options were to 1) reject the COI altogether or to 2) stick it out and command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Why do you think these were His only two options? If so, how do you explain the fact they were uncertain what to do?

There is no evidence they were eager to kill them, or that they were looking for excuses or justification to kill them. Because of their conundrum, they came to Moses for guidance and understanding. Seems to me this would have been the perfect opportunity for God to demonstrate His ultimate will and desire, as you understand it, and yet He commanded them to stone the sinners to death – a slow and painful way to go, unless the first stone knocks you out and you die in your sleep. Could it be that God, given the circumstances, did indeed express His will and desire? Is there any reason to think otherwise?

T: Regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaking, if you look at the SOP you will see lengthy explanations as to why God gave the counsel He did in this and like episodes, such as when the Levites killed those who worshiped the golden calf. The OT is a very violent book. There's no doubt that God, on the surface, appears to be violent and to use force to get His way. However, I don't believe this fits with what we know about God's character, and that we need to bring to bear certain principles of interpretation, such as that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and that God is sometimes put in the position of the father of the hunter in the story presented, where He gives counsel which may be misinterpreted.

As you have pointed out, God's counsel was the best possible counsel given the situation. He was in a circumstance where He could either give the counsel He did, or allow Israel to fall apart, for reasons the SOP details. That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way, any more than the counsel the father gave to his hunter son implies these things about him.

You wrote, “That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way . . .” Amen!!! I couldn’t agree more. That God did indeed do such things is clearly described in the Bible. There is no reason to assume He didn’t do them. We just need to understand the reasons behind why He does “strange acts”. There is limitless evidence to prove God is love, and that whatever He does, therefore, must be interpreted in the context of love – no matter how “strange” His “acts” seem to us.

You wrote, “If you look at the SOP you will see lengthy explanations as to why God gave the counsel He did in this and like episodes.” Yes, this is what I’ve been waiting to hear from you. But where are all these explanations? So far you have only alluded to them. Please post two or three of them so we can discuss them. And, use the ones that speak directly to the issue and not the ones that require inductive or deductive reasoning. Thank you.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/04/09 11:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: Yes, given that Saul held in his hand the full cup of woe, it was God's will and desire that things play out the way they did. Think of all the other ways it could have played out had God not intervened. No, I'm not saying God was happy Saul filled up the cup of woe. God worked very hard to help Saul live a godly life, but he filled up the cup of woe instead. There was nothing else God could do to woo and win him back. He was left with the miserable task of managing Saul's death in the one and only right and righteous way.

T: Why do you think God intervened? Also, when God makes a choice, why do you think there's necessarily only one right choice available? Why could there not at times be two or more equally good choices, and God simply chose any one of those?

That God intervened is evidenced by the fact things didn’t play out worse than they did. In theory there are an infinite number of options available to God, but in reality only one of them is the best one. Why? Because God is perfect; He is the epitome of absolute perfection. Everything He does is perfect, which, by definition and default, renders all other ways inferior and substandard. He settles for nothing less than best.

Quote:

M: Since the Fall of man, God has had to employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. He has also had to command holy angels to cause death and destruction. Again, here's how Ellen saw it:

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2} End quote

Again, Jesus claims responsibility. It matters not how death and destruction happens, as sovereign of the Universe, as Lord and Master, as King of kings, Jesus claims responsibility. Nothing happens without His permission. Satan is not at liberty to cause death and destruction according to his will and whim. He is answerable to Jesus. He cannot so much as lift a finger against us or our planet without the approval of Jesus. When sinners fill up their cup of woe, Jesus decides how, when, and where they suffer and die. Nothing is left to sin, Satan, or chance. Jesus is in total control of the outcome.

T: In regards to the last paragraph, is it your understanding that all suffering that happens takes place because this is what God desires?

M: Not even you boil "all suffering" down to the same thing. God must juggle millions of variables as circumstances force Him to manage the outcome of the sinful choices sinners make. Some people suffer because of the choices other people make. God must manage everything so that nothing plays out in a way that is not right and righteous. We are always placing God between a rock and a hard place.

In cases where sinners fill up the cup of woe, God employs many and varied ways to punish them. He tailors the punishment to fit the crime. There is nothing generic about what God does. Listen as Ellen describes it:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene-- pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. {3SG 80.2}

T: I don't understand why you think God does these things. You perceive God as capable of being the way you present Him as being, which I see as impossible, for the reason that He would not be acting in accordance with how Jesus Christ revealed Him to be, how Scripture and Ellen White describe Him of being, or in accordance with love.

“Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. (1 Cor. 13)

In the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, the description says that the Jews forged their own fetters, that they chose Satan as their leader, that they caused God to withdraw from them, and yet you *still* express what happened in terms of God's doing something to them to punish them. I don't see how she could possibly express something in a way that would have you see God as not being responsible for what fell upon them.

It seems to me that if, even in this circumstance, where she uses the strongest possible language that it was not God doing these things but Satan, that you *still* see God as punishing them and causing what happened to happen that there would be any circumstance where you wouldn't ascribe these things to God. So let me ask my question in a different way. Can you name a circumstance where suffering comes upon someone who rejects God that is not a result of God's actively willing that result to come upon them? By the phrase "actively willing," I'm distinguishing this from the idea that God "permits a desire He would prefer did not happen," which is what I believe God does when He punishes those who reject Him.

You wrote, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Are you backpeddling? I ask this question because on a different thread you confirmed your belief that 3SG 80 describes things God did and does. You were offended when I suggested you believe 3SG 80 describes the work of Satan.

You asked, “Can you name a circumstance where suffering comes upon someone who rejects God that is not a result of God's actively willing that result to come upon them?” Yes, the destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD. In this case, God withdrew His protection and gave them over to their unbridled fierce passions. The atrocities perpetrated against one another sounds more horrific to me than what happened when the Romans broke through the walls and killed them. God did not actively cause these things to happen; instead, He closely managed it. He also foresaw it, but He did not cause it to play out the way it did. He didn’t have to. I also happen to believe it would have played out the way it did without the presence or involvement of evil angels.

You wrote, “By the phrase "actively willing," I'm distinguishing this from the idea that God "permits a desire He would prefer did not happen," which is what I believe God does when He punishes those who reject Him.” We agree that God does indeed punish sinners. Yes, there are times when God permits things to play out a certain way, and there are times when He causes things to play out a certain way. Either way, Jesus takes full responsibility for the outcome; He micromanages everything. He leaves nothing to chance or Satan. Otherwise, things would play out contrary to God’s "will and purpose", in a way not conducive to a favorable outcome of the GC.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 01/06/09 06:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: teresaq

True. Thank you for pointing it out. I'm not the sharpest the tool in the shed. ...

Quote:

i havent come to any conclusions about those situations. i was merely asking you if it could "be possible that God would have preferred handling the situation in a different way". and pointing out the different passages where God gave the people what they wanted when it was not His will to do so. pointing those out in no way implied that i had any conclusions about the issue.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/06/09 09:18 AM

Quote:

M: For example, in light of all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, in what way do they demonstrate that God:

1. Freely forgives
2. Turns the other cheek
3. Goes the extra mile
4. Never resorts to force or violence

T: I haven't been arguing that the OT fully revealed God, but that Christ did. Christ revealed the things you've listed.

You didn’t answer my question. Or, is this a cryptic way of saying all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, do not demonstrate the four things named above?

Your question was based on a false assumption, so I addressed that.

Quote:

Also, are you saying the OT does not fully reveal the character and kingdom of God?

Our characters filter our ability to comprehend God's, as the following points out:

Quote:

25With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright;

26With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward. (Ps. 18)

Jesus' character was such that He was able to correctly understand the OT. Jesus said that what He saw, He did, and what He heard, He said. So Jesus was a perfect representation of the OT. Jesus and the God of the OT are the same! But most do not perceive this. Even holy angels did not correctly understand the OT. It wasn't until the revelation of Christ that their eternal security was established. Apart from Christ's revelation, there were no more secure than angels were before Satan started his rebellion (which wasn't very secure at all!).

Quote:

T: I just mentioned a whole list of things, like yesterday.

M:Are you referring to the fact God also employed the forces of nature to cause death and disease and destruction in consequence of sin?

That was one of about 6 things I mentioned.

Quote:

If so, then it sounds like we are in agreement that God does not always leave it up to Satan to accomplish His “will and purpose”, that there are times when He takes matters into His own hands

If be "take matters into His own hands" you mean "remove His protection," then yes, we are in agreement on this.

Quote:

Nicely put, Tom. I really appreciate how you stated it.

Good! Glad you liked that.

Quote:

However, I would like to say I have integrated what Ellen wrote about force and what she wrote about punishment. The purpose of punishment is not to force sinners to obey Him or to do anything else; instead, it is out of respect for and in obedience to the just and loving requirements of law and justice. Justice requires God to execute justice and judgment upon sinners. Death must happen in consequence of sin.

It's not that death must happen, as if there were some choice in the matter, as if death were an arbitrarily imposed penalty, but death *does* happen in consequence of sin. As Waggoner puts it:

Quote:

Sin has death wrapped up in it. Without sin death would be impossible, for "the sting of death is sin." (The Glad Tidings)

The SOP says that death is "the inevitable result of sin." James says that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. I've quoted Ty Gibson who points out that even a casual perusal of these Scripture shows there is an organic relationship between sin and death. Somehow you don't see this. I don't understand how. It seems to me that death "is the inevitable result of sin" is very clear in saying that sin causes death. If thing B is the inevitable result of thing A, that means thing A causes thing B.

When you say that God enforces the law, this gives the impression that death results not in consequence of sin, but in consequence of enforcing a sentence. The law of God is *descriptive*. It *describes* actions which are self-destructive, such as putting something above God, stealing, lying, and so forth. All of these actions are the fruit of selfishness, the opposite of self-sacrificing love, which is the law of life for the universe. When one breaks this law, one dies, not because God kills you, but because only the principle of life can give life! To think that God must kill those who do not practice the principle of life is to not understand the principle of life.

I think this may be a missing point in your thinking. It's not simply that sin is innocuous, but that there is such a thing as a principle of life, which is to receive from the hand of life and give to others from that which one has received.

Quote:

You wrote, “That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way . . .” Amen!!! I couldn’t agree more.

The difference between what we are saying is that you see God as using force and doing violent things, but just don't call these things "force" or "violence." However, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Force and violence by some other name is still force and violence.

Quote:

That God did indeed do such things is clearly described in the Bible. There is no reason to assume He didn’t do them.

There is reason to deduce that God permitted these things, as opposed to actively doing them. First of all, we have such examples in Scripture which speak of God as sending fiery serpents, or sending a lie, or destroying Jerusalem. Secondly we have the revelation of Jesus Christ. Thirdly we are told that God is love, and that love is patient and kind, keeps no record of wrong, etc. (1 Cor. 13)

Regarding your request to quote something from the SOP discussing why God allowed certain judgments to come upon the Israelites, here's one such place:

Quote:

Soon after leaving Mount Hor the Israelites suffered defeat in an engagement with Arad, one of the Canaanite kings. But as they earnestly sought help from God, divine aid was granted them, and their enemies were routed. This victory, instead of inspiring gratitude and leading the people to feel their dependence upon God, made them boastful and self-confident. Soon they fell into the old habit of murmuring. They were now dissatisfied because the armies of Israel had not been permitted to advance upon Canaan immediately after their rebellion at the report of the spies nearly forty years before. They pronounced their long sojourn in the wilderness an unnecessary delay, reasoning that they might have conquered their enemies as easily heretofore as now.

As they continued their journey toward the south, their route lay through a hot, sandy valley, destitute of shade or vegetation. The way seemed long and difficult, and they suffered from weariness and thirst. Again they failed to endure the test of their faith and patience. By continually dwelling on the dark side of their experiences, they separated themselves farther and farther from God. They lost sight of the fact that but for their murmuring when the water ceased at Kadesh, they would have been spared the journey around Edom. God had purposed better things for them. Their hearts should have been filled with gratitude to Him that He had punished their sin so lightly. But instead of this, they flattered themselves that if God and Moses had not interfered, they might now have been in possession of the Promised Land. After bringing trouble upon themselves, making their lot altogether harder than God designed, they charged all their misfortunes upon Him. Thus they cherished bitter thoughts concerning His dealings with them, and finally they became discontented with everything. Egypt looked brighter and more desirable than liberty and the land to which God was leading them.

As the Israelites indulged the spirit of discontent, they were disposed to find fault even with their blessings. "And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread."

Moses faithfully set before the people their great sin. It was God's power alone that had preserved them in "that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions,
and drought, where there was no water." Deuteronomy 8:15. Every day of their travels they had been kept by a miracle of divine mercy. In all the way of God's leading they had found water to refresh the thirsty, bread from heaven to satisfy their hunger, and peace and safety under the shadowy cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. Angels had ministered to them as they climbed the rocky heights or threaded the rugged paths of the wilderness. Notwithstanding the hardships they had endured, there was not a feeble one in all their ranks. Their feet had not swollen in their long journeys, neither had their clothes grown old. God had subdued before them the fierce beasts of prey and the venomous reptiles of the forest and the desert. If with all these tokens of His love the people still continued to complain, the Lord would withdraw His protection until they should be led to appreciate His merciful care, and return to Him with repentance and humiliation. (PP 428)

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/06/09 09:54 AM

Quote:

Saul died. We were talking about Saul. What worse thing would have happened to Saul had God not intervened? Also, how do you think that God intervened in the death of Saul?

Quote:

M:In theory there are an infinite number of options available to God, but in reality only one of them is the best one. Why? Because God is perfect; He is the epitome of absolute perfection. Everything He does is perfect, which, by definition and default, renders all other ways inferior and substandard. He settles for nothing less than best.

You didn't answer my question. My question was not about God, but about the choices that God makes. I asked why you think there can only be one right choice. Why can't there be two perfect choices, or more? For example, do you know what a perfect number is? It's a number the sum of whose factors is equal to the product of the same. So 6 is a perfect number because 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3. Similarly 28 is a perfect number. Because one number is perfect does not mean another can't also be. Similarly, it's possible for one choice to be equally as viable as another. The fact that God is perfect doesn't impact this.

Here's an example. Say there are two roads which go to a certain destination which are mirror images of one another, the same in every way. The two choices are equivalent. God could choose either one.

Quote:

You took her quote and substituted "God" with "Satan," and said that was what I believed. Do you think it is odd that I would find fault with you're doing that?

Quote:

You asked, “Can you name a circumstance where suffering comes upon someone who rejects God that is not a result of God's actively willing that result to come upon them?” Yes, the destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD.

So in this circumstance you do not believe that God willed them to suffer? This seems contrary to what you have written elsewhere. I've understood you as believing that nothing happens that God does not actively will. Am I mistaken in this? That is, you believe there are times when things happen which God does not will to happen? ("will" here = "actively will")

Quote:

I also happen to believe it would have played out the way it did without the presence or involvement of evil angels.

Why? She wrote:

Quote:

By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control. (GC 36)

This wouldn't seem to allow for the conclusion you have reached, that Satan's activity made no difference. She describes as what happened as a "demonstration of Satan's vindictive power," yet you say his involvement made no difference. Is there some reason other than what she wrote that led you to this conclusion? (since what she wrote doesn't suggest this).

Quote:

Either way, Jesus takes full responsibility for the outcome; He micromanages everything. He leaves nothing to chance or Satan. Otherwise, things would play out contrary to God’s "will and purpose", in a way not conducive to a favorable outcome of the GC.

You seem to be totally contradicting yourself here. Ok, let's start with a point of agreement. God takes full responsibility for what happens. I agree with this, which is why God is often presented as doing that which He permits.

The statement "He micromanages everything" I completely disagree with, as "micromanage" means:

Quote:

To direct or control in a detailed, often meddlesome manner. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/micromanage)

When you say He leaves nothing to chance or Satan, I think this is as wrong as can be. The entire book of Job was to disprove this idea. God did leave Job to Satan. It was Satan's will, not God's, that he loose his children, his possessions, be covered with painful sores, etc.

Posted By: 11thhourworker

Re: The Covenants - 01/06/09 10:27 AM

GOD HAS MANY PERFECT CHOICES ,HIS WAYS ARE HIGHER THAN OURS ,HIS WISDOM IS GREATER THAN OURS ,I SEE HIS HAND IN MY LIFE ,SOMETIMES ALLOWING BAD THINGS ,BUT THE END RESULT IS GOOD AND I LOOK BACK AND SEE ,HE HAD ME IN MIND ALL THE TIME ,I FOUND IT BEST NOT TO ANALYSE EVERYTHING ,IT MAKES ONE CRAZY ,GIVE IT TO GOD ,'PRAYER IS THE ANSWER TO EVERY PROBLEM IN LIFE ,EVERY ,
GOD HAS ALREADY SEEN THE FUTURE ,ALL OF ETERNITY ,THAT IS HOW GREAT HE IS ,YES GOD DOES ALLOW SATAN TO DO THINGS ,BUT ONLY TO MOLD AND PURIFY US ,JUST SURRENDER YOUR SELF ,TRUST ,ITS HARD,
BUT THATS FAITH ,OF A LITTLE CHILD,HES KNOWS EVERY PERFECT THING..

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/06/09 10:41 AM

Are you related to teresaq? (like an alter-ego)

Posted By: Colin

Re: The Covenants - 01/06/09 11:46 AM

No, to the best of my knowledge of contacting our new 11th hour worker isn't related to Teresa. Might be wrong, though...

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 01/06/09 04:30 PM

Quote:

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (GC 35-37)

Thank you for requoting what I wanted to hear your comments on. But, you seem to have answered it by giving what appears to be a contradictory quote.

You see, with your quotes, I can say they're the same as with Saul, even though God accepted responsibility for killing Saul, He wasn't directly the executioner. (That is, to "say" in my mind, whether you agree or not) Accepting responsibility is one thing, for if God is in charge, He could control and prevent all things. I do agree, that without God's "permission", nothing can happen. But that has the potential to digress into another topic....so, back to what's at hand.

However, there is a difference in allowing and causing something to happen. From future posts, I'm not sure you understand that. There's no point in going on if you don't understand that even though God said He killed Saul, something different, much much different really, happened than how it was worded. Therefore, when you say, " in light of all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill", I'm not sure you are agreeing.

By understanding some basic foundations and not jumping in the middle of some other topic, we can understand that sometimes what God says He does, may not be the same as what man may read to mean or mean when they say in like circumstances.

However, how would you justify the above quoted GC sentence to mean that really God does stand towards the sinner as an executioner? (That is, in your mind, whether I agree or not) Do you think it fair to justify it by saying, [sometimes] [once in a while] [often] [rarely] or whatever qualifier you wish to insert?

Quote:

He was left with the miserable task of managing Saul's death in the one and only right and righteous way.

Do you not think there may be a more humane way of "managing Saul's death"?
Or is " right and righteous" different than humane?
Do you hear what I'm trying to ask?
Did having an arrow maim him, resulting in a conversation with his armor bearer, only then having to fall on his own sword accomplish some sort of "punishment"? And what about his armor bearer?

Quote:

Yes, there are times when God permits things to play out a certain way, and there are times when He causes things to play out a certain way.

Why?

Why do you think God permits some things to play out and other times He has to cause things to happen since the natural result (punishment?) would not happen?

Quote:

Otherwise, things would play out contrary to God’s "will and purpose", in a way not conducive to a favorable outcome of the GC.

Would you be saying then, that He has to continually manipulate things to make it come out "right"? That his law and character cannot stand on its own unless He keeps adjusting it or things?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/06/09 09:49 PM

My question regarding teresaq and 11th hour was a joke (I was tempted to say "evil twin," but didn't want to offend anyone) based on the fact that teresaq doesn't use capitals when she writes, whereas 11th hour uses nothing but.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 01/07/09 05:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

that was cute!! i hope my "sister" sees it that way, also.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 01/07/09 05:47 AM

Originally Posted By: kland

You see, with your quotes, I can say they're the same as with Saul, even though God accepted responsibility for killing Saul, He wasn't directly the executioner. (That is, to "say" in my mind, whether you agree or not) Accepting responsibility is one thing, for if God is in charge, He could control and prevent all things. I do agree, that without God's "permission", nothing can happen. But that has the potential to digress into another topic....so, back to what's at hand.

this is the first time i knew what was meant when i hear "God accepts responsibility". thank you.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/08/09 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: teresaq

M: But I'm still interested in learning what makes sense to you today as it relates to the following question - Why did God command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If you think you have already answered this question, then please restate it here so I don't have to spend time searching for it. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

t: i havent come to any conclusions about those situations.

Okay. Thank you for the though provoking questions. It opens up avenues to consider and study.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/08/09 10:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: You insist we must interpret all the places in the Bible where it says God killed or commanded others to kill to mean that God freely forgives, that He turns the other cheek, that He goes the extra mile, that He never resorts to force or violence, that it actually means He withdrew His protection and gave them over to their own fierce passions and over to the unrestrained control of Satan.

T: Not quite, but pretty close! I agree with the part in italics. The underlined part I would put like this: "and gave them over the to results of their choice." What those results are need not be limited to the two things you mentioned.

M: In light of all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, in what way do you think they demonstrate that God:

1. Freely forgives
2. Turns the other cheek
3. Goes the extra mile
4. Never resorts to force or violence

T: I haven't been arguing that the OT fully revealed God, but that Christ did. Christ revealed the things you've listed.

M: You didn’t answer my question. Or, is this a cryptic way of saying all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, do not demonstrate the four things named above?

T: Your question was based on a false assumption, so I addressed that.

I included the whole history of this point in the box above. Your first response seemed to say you agreed with me. But now I can see you were saying the four attributes named above apply to God at all times except in the context I applied it. You seem to be saying such an application is based on a false premise. So, I ask again, are you saying all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, are not demonstrations of the four attributes named above? If so, then please explain which attributes of God they do demonstrate.

Quote:

M: Also, are you saying the OT does not fully reveal the character and kingdom of God?

T: Even holy angels did not correctly understand the OT. It wasn't until the revelation of Christ that their eternal security was established. Apart from Christ's revelation, there were no more secure than angels were before Satan started his rebellion (which wasn't very secure at all!).

We’ve discussed this theory before but I don’t remember arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. Seems to me you interpreted certain SOP statements regarding loyal angels not fully understanding until the cross Satan’s side of the GC to mean they ignorantly assumed throughout the OT that it was God’s will and desire to punish and destroy full-cup sinners, but at the cross it finally dawned on them that they had been dead wrong about God.

With this theory in mind you believe since loyal angels developed dead wrong ideas about God it is insane at best and arrogant at worst to think we can read the OT and not draw worse conclusions. But you are confusing issues. First, yes, the loyal angels were unclear about Satan but, no, they were not unclear about God. Second, yes, sinners are prone to formulate false views about God when they read the Bible but, no, this does not apply to the OT only, it also happens when they read the NT.

For example, Ellen wrote, “Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor.” (PP 420) It is unlikely they get this false impression of God from reading the OT. Most likely they get it from reading the NT and in particular the Synoptic Gospels. Even the loyal angels, more than two millennia after Jesus died on the cross, believe it is God’s will and desire to punish and destroy full-cup sinners. Listen:

Quote:

Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.
18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her.

You seem to think Satan is the one responsible for the death and destruction the loyal angels view as righteous and praiseworthy. I find it hard to believe, though, that the angels would praise God for something Satan does. These prophecies (posted above) do not depict the loyal angels praising God for permitting Satan to cause death and destruction; instead, they very clearly show them praising God for causing death and destruction. How do you reconcile this attitude and senitment with what you wrote above?

Quote:

T: I just mentioned a whole list of things, like yesterday.

M: Are you referring to the fact God also employed the forces of nature to cause death and disease and destruction in consequence of sin?

T: That was one of about 6 things I mentioned.

M: If so, then it sounds like we are in agreement that God does not always leave it up to Satan to accomplish His “will and purpose”, that there are times when He takes matters into His own hands.

T: If by "take matters into His own hands" you mean "remove His protection," then yes, we are in agreement on this.

Yes, that too, but mostly I was referring to the part about it being His “will and purpose”. Do you agree that, given the circumstances, it is God’s “will and purpose” to employ (as opposed to withdraw and permit) the forces of nature to kill full-cup sinners? Of course we both agree God wishes things hadn’t gotten to such a point. He would prefer not having to kill them. He would prefer it if the circumstances were such that He could bring them home safe and sound.

Quote:

M: However, I would like to say I have integrated what Ellen wrote about force and what she wrote about punishment. The purpose of punishment is not to force sinners to obey Him or to do anything else; instead, it is out of respect for and in obedience to the just and loving requirements of law and justice. Justice requires God to execute justice and judgment upon sinners. Death must happen in consequence of sin. Not to quell rebellion, not to coerce compliance, not to enforce obedience, but to uphold the honor and integrity of law and order. This speaks very well of God. It makes FMAs feel safe and secure knowing God values and enforces law and order.

T: It's not that death must happen, as if there were some choice in the matter, as if death were an arbitrarily imposed penalty, but death *does* happen in consequence of sin. As Waggoner puts it: “Sin has death wrapped up in it. Without sin death would be impossible, for "the sting of death is sin." (The Glad Tidings)

The SOP says that death is "the inevitable result of sin." James says that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. I've quoted Ty Gibson who points out that even a casual perusal of these Scripture shows there is an organic relationship between sin and death. Somehow you don't see this. I don't understand how. It seems to me that death "is the inevitable result of sin" is very clear in saying that sin causes death. If thing B is the inevitable result of thing A, that means thing A causes thing B.

When you say that God enforces the law, this gives the impression that death results not in consequence of sin, but in consequence of enforcing a sentence. The law of God is *descriptive*. It *describes* actions which are self-destructive, such as putting something above God, stealing, lying, and so forth. All of these actions are the fruit of selfishness, the opposite of self-sacrificing love, which is the law of life for the universe. When one breaks this law, one dies, not because God kills you, but because only the principle of life can give life! To think that God must kill those who do not practice the principle of life is to not understand the principle of life.

I think this may be a missing point in your thinking. It's not simply that sin is innocuous, but that there is such a thing as a principle of life, which is to receive from the hand of life and give to others from that which one has received.

The justice of God demands death for sin. Why would God demand something if it happens naturally anyhow? Also, why didn’t He demand pardon for sin instead of demanding death? Besides, demanding that something happen that happens naturally anyhow is like me or you demanding that an arrow return to earth after we shoot it with a bow. Sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? And yet that’s what you would have us believe about God, that He goes around demanding things happen that happen naturally.

Regarding your comments about the “principle of life” I’m not sure I follow you. Here’s what Ellen wrote about it: “All things both in heaven and in earth declare that the great law of life is a law of service . . . each takes to give.” (Ed 103) Are you saying the source of unending life is taking from God to give to others? If so, then I disagree. Yes, it affects the quality of life, but it is not the source of life. The breath God breathed into Adam is the source of life, and regularly eating from the tree of life is what perpetuates it. Death occurs when the breath of life returns to God. The same is true for both the first and second deaths.

Quote:

You wrote, “That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way . . .” Amen!!! I couldn’t agree more.

T: The difference between what we are saying is that you see God as using force and doing violent things, but just don't call these things "force" or "violence." However, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Force and violence by some other name is still force and violence.

How is what you said above any different than what you’re accusing me of? Again, you wrote, “That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way . . .” Are you saying that the things God was constrained to do were not acts of force and violence? If so, then I agree with you. For example, what happened to Sodom was certainly horrific, but it is no way means God used force or violence. Instead, it was an act of power on His part. There was nothing arbitrary or forceful or violent about it. Such terms apply to the history Hitler not God despite the similarities.

Quote:

M: That God did indeed do such things is clearly described in the Bible. There is no reason to assume He didn’t do them. We just need to understand the reasons behind why He does “strange acts”. There is limitless evidence to prove God is love, and that whatever He does, therefore, must be interpreted in the context of love – no matter how “strange” His “acts” seem to us.

T: There is reason to deduce that God permitted these things, as opposed to actively doing them. First of all, we have such examples in Scripture which speak of God as sending fiery serpents, or sending a lie, or destroying Jerusalem. Secondly we have the revelation of Jesus Christ. Thirdly we are told that God is love, and that love is patient and kind, keeps no record of wrong, etc. (1 Cor. 13)

All of the above is true. God both caused and permitted such things to happen. In either case the outcome is the same, namely, full-cup sinners are punished and killed. The “will and purpose” of God is served.

Quote:

Notwithstanding the hardships they had endured, there was not a feeble one in all their ranks. Their feet had not swollen in their long journeys, neither had their clothes grown old. God had subdued before them the fierce beasts of prey and the venomous reptiles of the forest and the desert. If with all these tokens of His love the people still continued to complain, the Lord would withdraw His protection until they should be led to appreciate His merciful care, and return to Him with repentance and humiliation. {PP 428.3}

Because they had been shielded by divine power they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were continually surrounded. In their ingratitude and unbelief they had anticipated death, and now the Lord permitted death to come upon them. The poisonous serpents that infested the wilderness were called fiery serpents, on account of the terrible effects produced by their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed from Israel, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {PP 429.1}

Tom, this passage doesn’t address my question. Here it is again:

Quote:

The passage you posted deals with God withdrawing His protection and allowing them to be defeated in battle and attacked by fiery serpents. But it doesn’t explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker or the blasphemer. Neither one of these cases involved God withdrawing His protection and allowing the forces of man and nature to run their courses unimpeded. Do you know of any inspired passages that explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/09/09 12:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

T: Why do you think God intervened? Also, when God makes a choice, why do you think there's necessarily only one right choice available? Why could there not at times be two or more equally good choices, and God simply chose any one of those?

M: That God intervened is evidenced by the fact things didn’t play out worse than they did.

T: Saul died. We were talking about Saul. What worse thing would have happened to Saul had God not intervened? Also, how do you think that God intervened in the death of Saul?

M: In theory there are an infinite number of options available to God, but in reality only one of them is the best one. Why? Because God is perfect; He is the epitome of absolute perfection. Everything He does is perfect, which, by definition and default, renders all other ways inferior and substandard. He settles for nothing less than best.

T: You didn't answer my question. My question was not about God, but about the choices that God makes. I asked why you think there can only be one right choice. Why can't there be two perfect choices, or more? For example, do you know what a perfect number is? It's a number the sum of whose factors is equal to the product of the same. So 6 is a perfect number because 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3. Similarly 28 is a perfect number. Because one number is perfect does not mean another can't also be. Similarly, it's possible for one choice to be equally as viable as another. The fact that God is perfect doesn't impact this.

Here's an example. Say there are two roads which go to a certain destination which are mirror images of one another, the same in every way. The two choices are equivalent. God could choose either one.

I am a former Special Forces soldier and I can testify that things could have turned out far worse for King Saul. God intervened in that He permitted an arrow to wound him, but not so bad that he couldn’t do something to avoid falling into the cruel and barbarous hands of the enemy, which is far worse than suicide.

You asked, “Why can't there be two perfect choices, or more?” The definition of “absolute perfection”, in the context of divinity, doesn’t allow for it. There is only one way that leads to heaven. All others lead to hell. There is only one God. All others are pretenders. Similarly, there can be only one right way to handle a given situation because God is the epitome of “absolute perfection”. There are too many variables for there to be more than one absolute perfect way to handle it. The idea there are two or more absolute perfect ways is counterintuitive. It eliminates the idea of absolute perfection.

Quote:

M: In cases where sinners fill up the cup of woe, God employs many and varied ways to punish them. He tailors the punishment to fit the crime. There is nothing generic about what God does. Listen as Ellen describes it:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene-- pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. {3SG 80.2}

T: I don't understand why you think God does these things. You perceive God as capable of being the way you present Him as being, which I see as impossible, for the reason that He would not be acting in accordance with how Jesus Christ revealed Him to be, how Scripture and Ellen White describe Him of being, or in accordance with love.

M: You wrote, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Are you backpedaling? I ask this question because on a different thread you confirmed your belief that 3SG 80 describes things God did and does. You were offended when I suggested you believe 3SG 80 describes the work of Satan.

T: You took her quote and substituted "God" with "Satan," and said that was what I believed. Do you think it is odd that I would find fault with you're doing that?

I included the history of this point in the box above. I quoted 3SG 80 and said God did and does these kinds of things, to which you replied, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Do you agree with me that God does indeed do these kinds of things? NOTE: I’m not here referring to when I suggested elsewhere you credit Satan with doing them; instead, I’m referring to what we said here (in the first two posts in the box above).

Quote:

M: You asked, “Can you name a circumstance where suffering comes upon someone who rejects God that is not a result of God's actively willing that result to come upon them?” Yes, the destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD. In this case, God withdrew His protection and gave them over to their unbridled fierce passions. The atrocities perpetrated against one another sounds more horrific to me than what happened when the Romans broke through the walls and killed them. God did not actively cause these things to happen; instead, He closely managed it. He also foresaw it, but He did not cause it to play out the way it did. He didn’t have to.

T: So in this circumstance you do not believe that God willed them to suffer? This seems contrary to what you have written elsewhere. I've understood you as believing that nothing happens that God does not actively will. Am I mistaken in this? That is, you believe there are times when things happen which God does not will to happen? ("will" here = "actively will")

M: I also happen to believe it would have played out the way it did without the presence or involvement of evil angels.

T: Why? She wrote: “By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control. (GC 36)

This wouldn't seem to allow for the conclusion you have reached, that Satan's activity made no difference. She describes as what happened as a "demonstration of Satan's vindictive power," yet you say his involvement made no difference. Is there some reason other than what she wrote that led you to this conclusion? (since what she wrote doesn't suggest this).

Yes, it was God’s “will and purpose” to withdraw His protection and permit the Jews to suffer and die the way they did; otherwise, He would have managed the outcome differently. Just because God withdraws His protection it does not mean He isn’t actively involved. He is very actively involved in making sure things play out according to His absolute perfect “will and purpose”.

“I also happen to believe it would have played out the way it did without the presence or involvement of evil angels.” By this I mean God is not dependent on Satan for things to play out according to His “will and purpose”. God is perfectly capable of making sure things play out according to the one and only right and perfect way without Satan’s presence or involvement. Do you agree? Or, do you believe God is dependent on Satan? I feel weird asking this question.

Quote:

M: You wrote, “By the phrase "actively willing," I'm distinguishing this from the idea that God "permits a desire He would prefer did not happen," which is what I believe God does when He punishes those who reject Him.” We agree that God does indeed punish sinners. Yes, there are times when God permits things to play out a certain way, and there are times when He causes things to play out a certain way. Either way, Jesus takes full responsibility for the outcome; He micromanages everything. He leaves nothing to chance or Satan. Otherwise, things would play out contrary to God’s "will and purpose", in a way not conducive to a favorable outcome of the GC.

T: You seem to be totally contradicting yourself here. Ok, let's start with a point of agreement. God takes full responsibility for what happens. I agree with this, which is why God is often presented as doing that which He permits.

The statement "He micromanages everything" I completely disagree with, as "micromanage" means: “To direct or control in a detailed, often meddlesome manner (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/micromanage).

When you say He leaves nothing to chance or Satan, I think this is as wrong as can be. The entire book of Job was to disprove this idea. God did leave Job to Satan. It was Satan's will, not God's, that he loose his children, his possessions, be covered with painful sores, etc.

Perhaps “micromanage” means what you quoted in certain cases, but it certainly doesn’t mean this in the case of God. Sometimes we have to make distinctions between sinners and God. For example, God is said to be a “jealous God”, but elsewhere we read, “Jealousy is cruel as the grave.” Obviously we cannot apply the same meaning to both cases, right? Actually, though, the definition you posted above would be fine if we delete the phrase “often meddlesome”. Unless, of course, we choose to define “meddlesome” in a positive sense, in which case it also reads fine.

Do you really believe that when God withdraws His protection that He relinquishes all control, that God does nothing to ensure Satan works within the limits and boundaries He has established? For example, whose will was it for Job not to die – God’s or Satan’s? As I recall the story, it was God who brought up Job in the first place. And, it was God who set limits on what Satan could do and not do. Holy angels were on hand to make sure Satan worked within the limits and boundaries established by God. I assume Satan took things to the limit.

I realize you believe it was “Satan's will, not God's, that he lose his children, his possessions, be covered with painful sores, etc”, but do you agree with me that holy angles made sure Satan worked within the limits and boundaries established by God?

By the way, do you think it was God’s “will and purpose” to allow Satan to test Job? Or, did God have any choice in the matter? Was He bound by the rules of engagement to permit Satan to attack Job? Similarly, was it God’s “will and purpose” to allow John the Baptist to suffer and die the way he did? And what about Jesus and Peter and Paul and John, etc? Was it God’s “will and purpose” to allow them to suffer and die the way they did? If not, please explain why. Thank you.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/09/09 12:10 AM

Originally Posted By: 11thhourworker

GOD HAS MANY PERFECT CHOICES ,HIS WAYS ARE HIGHER THAN OURS ,HIS WISDOM IS GREATER THAN OURS ,I SEE HIS HAND IN MY LIFE ,SOMETIMES ALLOWING BAD THINGS ,BUT THE END RESULT IS GOOD AND I LOOK BACK AND SEE ,HE HAD ME IN MIND ALL THE TIME ,I FOUND IT BEST NOT TO ANALYSE EVERYTHING ,IT MAKES ONE CRAZY ,GIVE IT TO GOD ,'PRAYER IS THE ANSWER TO EVERY PROBLEM IN LIFE ,EVERY ,

GOD HAS ALREADY SEEN THE FUTURE ,ALL OF ETERNITY ,THAT IS HOW GREAT HE IS ,YES GOD DOES ALLOW SATAN TO DO THINGS ,BUT ONLY TO MOLD AND PURIFY US ,JUST SURRENDER YOUR SELF ,TRUST ,ITS HARD, BUT THATS FAITH ,OF A LITTLE CHILD,HES KNOWS EVERY PERFECT THING..

Amen! Yes, God knows the end from the beginning. He knows all the choices and all the possible outcomes and He works very hard to ensure everything plays out according to His "will and purpose". God is good - all the time!

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/09/09 01:02 AM

Originally Posted By: kland

M: "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (GC 35-37)

K: Thank you for requoting what I wanted to hear your comments on. But, you seem to have answered it by giving what appears to be a contradictory quote.

You see, with your quotes, I can say they're the same as with Saul, even though God accepted responsibility for killing Saul, He wasn't directly the executioner. (That is, to "say" in my mind, whether you agree or not) Accepting responsibility is one thing, for if God is in charge, He could control and prevent all things. I do agree, that without God's "permission", nothing can happen. But that has the potential to digress into another topic....so, back to what's at hand.

In gathering other quotes which speak to God "executing justice and judgment upon sinners" I meant to demonstrate there are other facets to consider. I do not see them as contradicting what she wrote in GC 36. God is not an "executioner" in the sense He isn't the guy lopping off heads with an axe or guillotine. She explains how God has executed justice and judgment in the past and how He will do it at the end of time. The last chapter in the GC describes the final execution of justice and judgment in graphic detail. God will employ three different sources of fire to punish and destroy sinners in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness - 1) the firelight of His glory, 2) fire rained down from above, and 3) fire raised up from below.

Quote:

K: However, there is a difference in allowing and causing something to happen. From future posts, I'm not sure you understand that. There's no point in going on if you don't understand that even though God said He killed Saul, something different, much much different really, happened than how it was worded. Therefore, when you say, " in light of all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill", I'm not sure you are agreeing.

Today I posted responses regarding King Saul. Hopefully I made it clear God withdrew His protection and permitted King Saul's situation to play out as it did. Otherwise, yes, I agree there is no point in going on.

Quote:

K: By understanding some basic foundations and not jumping in the middle of some other topic, we can understand that sometimes what God says He does, may not be the same as what man may read to mean or mean when they say in like circumstances.

However, how would you justify the above quoted GC sentence to mean that really God does stand towards the sinner as an executioner? (That is, in your mind, whether I agree or not) Do you think it fair to justify it by saying, [sometimes] [once in a while] [often] [rarely] or whatever qualifier you wish to insert?

Hopefully my response above addresses this question sufficiently. If not, I can try and spell out my position more clearly.

Quote:

M: He was left with the miserable task of managing Saul's death in the one and only right and righteous way.

K: 1) Do you not think there may be a more humane way of "managing Saul's death"? 2) Or is " right and righteous" different than humane? 3) Do you hear what I'm trying to ask?
4) Did having an arrow maim him, resulting in a conversation with his armor bearer, only then having to fall on his own sword accomplish some sort of "punishment"? 5) And what about his armor bearer?

1. No. God is the epitome of absolute perfection, therefore, the way He managed King Saul's outcome was the one and only right way.
2. No. They are one and the same thing.
3. I think so. If not, please help me out.
4. Yes. King Saul's punishment played out according to God's absolute perfect "will and purpose" (3SG 80).
5. The armor bearer did what any good armor bearer would do. His choices were very limited. God took all these things into consideration in the way He managed the outcome. There is a good chance we'll see him in heaven. He was loyal and faithful to the "Lord's anointed". Heaven is made for such souls.

Quote:

M: Yes, there are times when God permits things to play out a certain way, and there are times when He causes things to play out a certain way.

K: Why? Why do you think God permits some things to play out and other times He has to cause things to happen since the natural result (punishment?) would not happen?

There is nothing natural about the consequences we suffer in this lifetime as it relates to the "wages of sin". The wages of sin is immediate and eternal death, not a lifetime of sinning and suffering.

Quote:

M: Otherwise, things would play out contrary to God’s "will and purpose", in a way not conducive to a favorable outcome of the GC.

K: Would you be saying then, that He has to continually manipulate things to make it come out "right"? That his law and character cannot stand on its own unless He keeps adjusting it or things?

Yes, but the word "manipulate" infers a negative connotation. That's why I like to use the word "manage" or "orchestrate" instead. For example, if God had not intervened with a Flood the world would have fallen under Satan's undisputed control. The same thing applies to the Tower of Babel. Had God not acted not one righteous soul would have remained. For a similar reason He will cut things short during the time of the end.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/09/09 09:41 AM

Quote:

Are you saying all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, are not demonstrations of the four attributes named above? If so, then please explain which attributes of God they do demonstrate.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Please state your point.

Quote:

I've never put it that way. That is, I've never used the words "ignorantly assumed" or "finally dawned." I think for carrying on discussions like this it would be a lot better to avoid these kind of pejorative descriptions, and stick to more neutral ones (and I freely admit I may be guilty of the same thing at times, although I do a lot of editing to weed these things out!).

The way I would put it is that that until the cross, the angels did not fully understand certain things, one of them being that death is the inevitable result of sin. For example:

Quote:

Notwithstanding this terrible lesson, men had no sooner begun to multiply once more, than rebellion and vice became widespread. Satan seemed to have taken control of the world. The time came that a change must be made, or the image of God would be wholly obliterated from the hearts of the beings He had created. All heaven watched the movements of God with intense interest. Would He once more manifest His wrath? Would He destroy the world by fire? The angels thought that the time had come to strike the blow of justice, when, lo, to their wondering vision was unveiled the plan of salvation. Wonder, O heavens, and be astonished, O earth! God sent His only begotten Son into the world to save the world! Amazing grace! "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1888 Mat. 569)

Quote:

With this theory in mind you believe since loyal angels developed dead wrong ideas about God it is insane at best and arrogant at worst to think we can read the OT and not draw worse conclusions.

There you go again! Please, see if you can stay closer to what I've written, or, here's a thought!

*Quote* something I've actually said! Anyway, this particular characterization is so far off, I'll pass on commenting.

Quote:

But you are confusing issues. First, yes, the loyal angels were unclear about Satan but, no, they were not unclear about God.

This is impossible. There are two protagonists in the Great Controversy. To be confused in regards to one is to be confused in regards to the other. This is because Satan's whole game is to vest God with his own attributes, and to pawn himself off as being reasonable in regards to his own actions, and complaints about God. Think about it; if someone gives credence to what Satan is saying about God, it must follow that one is suffering some doubts in regards to God, because that's the very thing Satan was raising doubts about.

Anway, the above 1888 Mat. quote shows that the angels did indeed suffer some confusion in regards to God's plans, in particular, in regards to what we've been discussing.

Quote:

Second, yes, sinners are prone to formulate false views about God when they read the Bible but, no, this does not apply to the OT only, it also happens when they read the NT.

Sure, one can happen to NT writings as well. But this is beside the point I've been making, which is that Jesus Christ is a full revelation of God's character. When we've seen Him, we've seen the Father. All that we can know about God was revealed by Him.

Quote:

For example, Ellen wrote, “Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor.” (PP 420) It is unlikely they get this false impression of God from reading the OT. Most likely they get it from reading the NT and in particular the Synoptic Gospels. Even the loyal angels, more than two millennia after Jesus died on the cross, believe it is God’s will and desire to punish and destroy full-cup sinners.

Of course not. God Himself says, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Paul tells us that God is *not* willing that any should perish. Angels know this of course. When Christ was urged to destroy, He said, "You know not of what spirit you are. For the Son of Man came not do destroy man's lives but to say them." Jesus Christ revealed God's will, which is not to destroy, but to save. As the SOP points out:

Quote:

Satan is the destroyer; the Lord is the Restorer.(Christ Triumphant 239)

Quote:

These prophecies (posted above) do not depict the loyal angels praising God for permitting Satan to cause death and destruction; instead, they very clearly show them praising God for causing death and destruction. How do you reconcile this attitude and sentiment with what you wrote above?

I think you're wrong. The angels are not praising God for causing death and destruction. God does not cause death and destruction. Satan is the author of sin and all its results (DA 471). Death and destruction of the results of sin. We are told Satan is the destroyer, not the Lord, who is "the restorer."

I think the idea that the angels praise God for causing death and destruction is awful. Also not pleasant is the idea that God Himself would desire being view as wishing praise for such things.

Quote:

Do you agree that, given the circumstances, it is God’s “will and purpose” to employ (as opposed to withdraw and permit) the forces of nature to kill full-cup sinners?

No. I believe GC 35, 36 explain God's will and purpose.

Quote:

Of course we both agree God wishes things hadn’t gotten to such a point. He would prefer not having to kill them.

He would prefer that they not choose death. Ty Gibson brings out this point nicely:

Quote:

God does not threaten, “If you keep sinning, I will kill you.” Rather, He warns, “If you continue in sin, you will die,” for “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And so He pleads, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die …? (Ezek. 33:11). We’re caught off guard by a question like this from God. We are more inclined to ask Him, “Why do You kill?” But He points to our sin and asks us, “Why do you choose death?”

Quote:

He would prefer it if the circumstances were such that He could bring them home safe and sound.

I agree with this. He would rather the choose life than death.

(More later)

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/09/09 10:43 AM

Quote:

T:T: It's not that death must happen, as if there were some choice in the matter, as if death were an arbitrarily imposed penalty, but death *does* happen in consequence of sin. As Waggoner puts it: “Sin has death wrapped up in it. Without sin death would be impossible, for "the sting of death is sin." (The Glad Tidings)

The SOP says that death is "the inevitable result of sin." James says that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. I've quoted Ty Gibson who points out that even a casual perusal of these Scripture shows there is an organic relationship between sin and death. Somehow you don't see this. I don't understand how. It seems to me that death "is the inevitable result of sin" is very clear in saying that sin causes death. If thing B is the inevitable result of thing A, that means thing A causes thing B.

M:The justice of God demands death for sin. Why would God demand something if it happens naturally anyhow? Also, why didn’t He demand pardon for sin instead of demanding death? Besides, demanding that something happen that happens naturally anyhow is like me or you demanding that an arrow return to earth after we shoot it with a bow. Sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? And yet that’s what you would have us believe about God, that He goes around demanding things happen that happen naturally.

I'm not following how what you wrote is a response to what I wrote.

Quote:

Regarding your comments about the “principle of life” I’m not sure I follow you. Here’s what Ellen wrote about it: “All things both in heaven and in earth declare that the great law of life is a law of service . . . each takes to give.” (Ed 103) Are you saying the source of unending life is taking from God to give to others?

No, I didn't say this. I said it was the "law of life." Actually, I didn't say it. Ellen White said it. I quoted her.

Quote:

If so, then I disagree. Yes, it affects the quality of life, but it is not the source of life.

God is the source of life. That's what I've said in relation to "source of life."

Quote:

The breath God breathed into Adam is the source of life, and regularly eating from the tree of life is what perpetuates it.

I think this is a simplistic view. Your suggesting a mechanism which is perpetuated, not needing help from God. Indeed, that's what you said, that God need not do anything, right? (given that one at of the tree of life). You have a theory of life which leaves God out of the picture, at least not directly in the picture.

Quote:

The mechanism of the human body cannot be fully understood; it presents mysteries that baffle the most intelligent. It is not as the result of a mechanism, which, once set in motion, continues its work, that the pulse beats and breath follows breath. In God we live and move and have our being. The beating heart, the throbbing pulse, every nerve and muscle in the living organism, is kept in order and activity by the power of an ever-present God. (MH 417)

I don't see that presents the same picture you are suggesting.

Quote:

Death occurs when the breath of life returns to God. The same is true for both the first and second deaths.

It's the other way around. That is, when death occurs, the breath of life returns to God.

Quote:

T: The difference between what we are saying is that you see God as using force and doing violent things, but just don't call these things "force" or "violence." However, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Force and violence by some other name is still force and violence.

M:How is what you said above any different than what you’re accusing me of? Again, you wrote, “That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way . . .” Are you saying that the things God was constrained to do were not acts of force and violence?

Yes. GC 35, 36 explains the principle. She says:

Quote:

God is caused to withdraw His protection, which results in violence to happen to the victims who eschew God's protection. God is not violent. He doesn't use force.

Quote:

Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. (DA 759)

I don't see how your ideas fit with the principles expressed here.

Quote:

If so, then I agree with you. For example, what happened to Sodom was certainly horrific, but it in no way means God used force or violence. Instead, it was an act of power on His part.
There was nothing arbitrary or forceful or violent about it.

You're simply repeating the point I responded to with the Shakepeare quote. You believe God used violence and force, but call it a different name. "Power". But changing the name of what you call it doesn't change how you think God acted.

Quote:

Such terms apply to the history Hitler not God despite the similarities.

Not just the terms, but the actions, apply to Hitler rather than God. This is a point kland has been making.

(More later)

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/09/09 11:18 AM

Regarding your question regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, no, I don't know of any.

Quote:

The perfection of God doesn't imply there can be choices which are equally good. There's no reason why this should be the case. A perfect person will never make a choice worse than another choice, but that doesn't mean there can't be two or more choices which are equally good.

Quote:

M: You wrote, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Are you backpedaling? I ask this question because on a different thread you confirmed your belief that 3SG 80 describes things God did and does. You were offended when I suggested you believe 3SG 80 describes the work of Satan.

T: You took her quote and substituted "God" with "Satan," and said that was what I believed. Do you think it is odd that I would find fault with you're doing that?

M:I included the history of this point in the box above. I quoted 3SG 80 and said God did and does these kinds of things, to which you replied, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Do you agree with me that God does indeed do these kinds of things? NOTE: I’m not here referring to when I suggested elsewhere you credit Satan with doing them; instead, I’m referring to what we said here (in the first two posts in the box above).

You skipped the most important part, where you took her quote and replaced "God" with "Satan."

Quote:

You ideas here are Augustinian. I disagree with this concept of God's will, which is far closer to Calvinism than Adventism. This idea would merit a thread of its own.

By way of clarification, do you believe that God's will is always done?

Quote:

Perhaps “micromanage” means what you quoted in certain cases, but it certainly doesn’t mean this in the case of God.

MM, words mean what they mean. It seems like you feel that words have no objective meanings; they're simply whatever you feel like what they should mean. "Micromanage" means what it means. It doesn't matter who the subject is.

You chose the use of the word. I'm simply cited what its meaning is. If you don't like what the word means, why don't you choose another word?

Regarding God's setting boundaries, yes, of course, otherwise Satan would kill everybody.

Regarding if it was God's purpose that Paul or Peter or others be killed, no, it wasn't. However, out of the evil that others do, God is still able to achieve His purpose, which is the revelation of His character. When one returns good for evil, God accomplishes His purpose.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 01/09/09 10:03 PM

For comparison with this topic:

Originally Posted By: From another thread

MM: "Whatever might have been meant how does that change the fact that God gave the Israelites what they wanted and not what was His will?" I don't see God compromising with sin in this case. Wanting a godly king to lead them was not a sin. Or, do you know of a quote that says otherwise. I know it wasn't God's ideal for them, but was having a king a sin in and of itself?

T: kland said it wasn't God's will. "God gave the Israelites what they wanted and not what was His will."
He didn't say anything about sin. If you want to ask a question about sin, that's fine, but why not answer the question that you were asked on the way to asking your question?

That's good, Tom! I would have missed that. Many times in speaking to evolutionists, they change or insert a word for distraction. I take it to mean they are getting uncomfortable and wish to sidetrack the issue. And away it goes. However, I don't know if it was MM's intent. I'm not sure why he does it. It can't be because he generalizes words and terms as recently shown by putting qualifiers on certain things such as "perverted" desires rather than plain desires.

Quote:

T: I haven't been arguing that the OT fully revealed God, but that Christ did. Christ revealed the things you've listed.

MM: But now I can see you were saying the four attributes named above apply to God at all times except in the context I applied it.

In case you missed this one, I see a very similar application.

OT not fully revealed God but Christ did
-vs-
four attributes not applying to God

Am I right?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 01/09/09 10:19 PM

Comparison?:

Quote:

MM: Yes, it was God’s “will and purpose” to withdraw His protection and permit the Jews to suffer and die the way they did; otherwise, He would have managed the outcome differently.
MM: God is the epitome of absolute perfection, therefore, the way He managed King Saul's outcome was the one and only right way.

Evolutionists: Yes, we do have proof that evolution happened. Otherwise, we would not be here.

Are both cyclic?

Quote:

God is not an "executioner" in the sense He isn't the guy lopping off heads with an axe or guillotine.
...
God will employ three different sources of fire to punish and destroy sinners in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness - 1) the firelight of His glory, 2) fire rained down from above, and 3) fire raised up from below.

Raining fire down from heaven and up from below -- how is that different than swinging an ax? As in, the woodsman isn't actually lopping off a head, but merely employing the powers of an ax? I'm afraid your explanation of King Saul is no different than God being an executioner. Neither am I sure that it fits in with your other statements. Saul chose to defy God. Yet, you say that God permitted/"managed" his death. Why? Why for someone who went against God, but other times God manages the death/torture of others who don't defy Him by letting them fall into the hands of the enemy?

MM, do you see some things are just not "fitting" with your view?
I suppose you might say, that's just love or justice and we'll understand it later?

As I said before, I can explain the apparent contradictions by saying we don't fully understand scripture at first, and that by comparing text with text, with things like "God killed Saul", we start to understand that certain killing/punishing can mean something else.

Can you explain by like means the apparent contradictions?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/11/09 10:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: Are you saying all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, are *not* demonstrations of the four attributes named above [omitted by Tom]? If so, then please explain which attributes of God they do demonstrate.

T: I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Please state your point.

Please answer the question first. Thank you.

Quote:

M: We’ve discussed this theory before but I don’t remember arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. Seems to me you interpreted certain SOP statements regarding loyal angels not fully understanding until the cross Satan’s side of the GC to mean they ignorantly assumed throughout the OT that it was God’s will and desire to punish and destroy full-cup sinners, but at the cross it finally dawned on them that they had been dead wrong about God.

T: I've never put it that way. That is, I've never used the words "ignorantly assumed" or "finally dawned." I think for carrying on discussions like this it would be a lot better to avoid these kind of pejorative descriptions, and stick to more neutral ones (and I freely admit I may be guilty of the same thing at times, although I do a lot of editing to weed these things out!).

The way I would put it is that that until the cross, the angels did not fully understand certain things, one of them being that death is the inevitable result of sin. For example:

Quote:

M: With this theory in mind you believe since loyal angels developed dead wrong ideas about God it is insane at best and arrogant at worst to think we can read the OT and not draw worse conclusions.

T: There you go again! Please, see if you can stay closer to what I've written, or, here's a thought!

*Quote* something I've actually said! Anyway, this particular characterization is so far off, I'll pass on commenting.

M: But you are confusing issues. First, yes, the loyal angels were unclear about Satan but, no, they were not unclear about God.

T: This is impossible. There are two protagonists in the Great Controversy. To be confused in regards to one is to be confused in regards to the other. This is because Satan's whole game is to vest God with his own attributes, and to pawn himself off as being reasonable in regards to his own actions, and complaints about God. Think about it; if someone gives credence to what Satan is saying about God, it must follow that one is suffering some doubts in regards to God, because that's the very thing Satan was raising doubts about.

Anway, the above 1888 Mat. quote shows that the angels did indeed suffer some confusion in regards to God's plans, in particular, in regards to what we've been discussing.

I hear you saying you think the angels did not, before the cross, "fully understand" 1) the truth about God's kingdom and character, 2) the truth about Satan's claims and accusations, and 3) the truth about the inevitable results of sin. And, based on these things, you also believe the angels "incorrectly" expected, just before Jesus' incarnation, God to once again wipe out sinners on a wholesale scale.

Based on these observations, do you think it is likely humans can read the OT and arrive at better conclusions than you think the angels did regarding the kingdom and character of God?

Quote:

M: Second, yes, sinners are prone to formulate false views about God when they read the Bible but, no, this does not apply to the OT only, it also happens when they read the NT.

T: Sure, one can happen to NT writings as well. But this is beside the point I've been making, which is that Jesus Christ is a full revelation of God's character. When we've seen Him, we've seen the Father. All that we can know about God was revealed by Him.

M: For example, Ellen wrote, “Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor.” (PP 420) It is unlikely they get this false impression of God from reading the OT. Most likely they get it from reading the NT and in particular the Synoptic Gospels. Even the loyal angels, more than two millennia after Jesus died on the cross, believe it is God’s will and desire to punish and destroy full-cup sinners.

T: Of course not. God Himself says, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Paul tells us that God is *not* willing that any should perish. Angels know this of course. When Christ was urged to destroy, He said, "You know not of what spirit you are. For the Son of Man came not do destroy man's lives but to say them." Jesus Christ revealed God's will, which is not to destroy, but to save. As the SOP points out: "Satan is the destroyer; the Lord is the Restorer.(Christ Triumphant 239)

M: These prophecies [omitted by Tom] do not depict the loyal angels praising God for permitting Satan to cause death and destruction; instead, they very clearly show them praising God for causing death and destruction. How do you reconcile this attitude and sentiment with what you wrote above [omitted by Tom]?

T: I think you're wrong. The angels are not praising God for causing death and destruction. God does not cause death and destruction. Satan is the author of sin and all its results (DA 471). Death and destruction of the results of sin. We are told Satan is the destroyer, not the Lord, who is "the restorer."

I think the idea that the angels praise God for causing death and destruction is awful. Also not pleasant is the idea that God Himself would desire being view as wishing praise for such things.

You wrote, "All that we can know about God was revealed by Him." Why do you insist on misstating, thus, misrepresenting, what Ellen wrote?

Also, why do you insist on misrepresenting what the angels think and feel while witnessing sinners suffering during the seven last plagues? See Revelation 16 and 18.

Quote:

M: Do you agree that, given the circumstances, it is God’s “will and purpose” to employ (as opposed to withdraw and permit) the forces of nature to kill full-cup sinners?

T: No. I believe GC 35, 36 explain God's will and purpose.

So, you believe the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction is God's "will and purpose", right? And, you think all the places in the Bible that describe God causing death and destruction must be seen as examples of the "withdraw and permit" method, right? If these observations are correct, then which aspect is God's "will and purpose" - 1) withdrawing and permitting, or 2) the resulting death and destruction?

Quote:

M: Of course we both agree God wishes things hadn’t gotten to such a point. He would prefer not having to kill them.

T: He would prefer that they not choose death. Ty Gibson brings out this point nicely: God does not threaten, “If you keep sinning, I will kill you.” Rather, He warns, “If you continue in sin, you will die,” for “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And so He pleads, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die …? (Ezek. 33:11). We’re caught off guard by a question like this from God. We are more inclined to ask Him, “Why do You kill?” But He points to our sin and asks us, “Why do you choose death?”

M: He would prefer it if the circumstances were such that He could bring them home safe and sound.

T: I agree with this. He would rather the choose life than death.

Is this what you think God's "will and purpose" is as described in 3SG 80, namely, to motivate sinners to choose life and not death? Listen:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene-- pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. {3SG 80.2} End Quote.

For example, you believe the phrase above "he calls them into action to serve his purpose" should be interpreted to mean "he permits them to naturally run their course and serve his purpose", right? Either way, what is His will and purpose - 1) to withdraw and permit, or 2) the resulting death and destruction?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/11/09 10:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

T: It's not that death must happen, as if there were some choice in the matter, as if death were an arbitrarily imposed penalty, but death *does* happen in consequence of sin.

M: The justice of God demands death for sin. Why would God demand something if it happens naturally anyhow? Also, why didn’t He demand pardon for sin instead of demanding death?

T: I'm not following how what you wrote is a response to what I wrote.

I was assuming you agree with the following insight: “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}

You insist elsewhere, if not on this thread, that the word “justice” in this quote means God. Thus, you believe it should be interpreted to mean, “God demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed.” You then seem to also think we must interpret this reworded passage to mean “God demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed so that sinners can experience the inevitable result of sin when He withdraws His protection.”

So I ask again, why would God have to demand that death happens if, as you say, it is going to happen naturally as soon as He stops preventing it from happening? And, why doesn’t He demand pardon for sin instead of demanding death?

Quote:

M: Regarding your comments about the “principle of life” I’m not sure I follow you. Here’s what Ellen wrote about it: “All things both in heaven and in earth declare that the great law of life is a law of service . . . each takes to give.” (Ed 103) Are you saying the source of unending life is taking from God to give to others?

T: No, I didn't say this. I said it was the "law of life." Actually, I didn't say it. Ellen White said it. I quoted her.

If so, then I disagree. Yes, it affects the quality of life, but it is not the source of life.

T: God is the source of life. That's what I've said in relation to "source of life."

M: The breath God breathed into Adam is the source of life, and regularly eating from the tree of life is what perpetuates it.

T: I think this is a simplistic view. Your suggesting a mechanism which is perpetuated, not needing help from God. Indeed, that's what you said, that God need not do anything, right? (given that one at of the tree of life). You have a theory of life which leaves God out of the picture, at least not directly in the picture.

Quote:

I don't see that presents the same picture you are suggesting.

M: Death occurs when the breath of life returns to God. The same is true for both the first and second deaths.

T: It's the other way around. That is, when death occurs, the breath of life returns to God.

There is nothing simplistic about it, Tom. God ordered things from the beginning in such a way that we must regularly eat of the tree of life to perpetuate the breath of life within us. Death cannot occur while the breath of life resides within us. Yes, God must work to uphold the laws that enable to the tree of life to bear fruit and that make the planet a habitable place for humans.

Quote:

T: The difference between what we are saying is that you see God as using force and doing violent things, but just don't call these things "force" or "violence." However, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Force and violence by some other name is still force and violence.

M: How is what you said above any different than what you’re accusing me of? Again, you wrote, “That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way . . .” Are you saying that the things God was constrained to do were not acts of force and violence?

T: Yes. GC 35, 36 explains the principle. She says:

Quote:

God is caused to withdraw His protection, which results in violence to happen to the victims who eschew God's protection. God is not violent. He doesn't use force.

Quote:

I don't see how your ideas fit with the principles expressed here.

M: If so, then I agree with you. For example, what happened to Sodom was certainly horrific, but it in no way means God used force or violence. Instead, it was an act of power on His part. There was nothing arbitrary or forceful or violent about it.

T: You're simply repeating the point I responded to with the Shakepeare quote. You believe God used violence and force, but call it a different name. "Power". But changing the name of what you call it doesn't change how you think God acted.

M: Such terms apply to the history Hitler not God despite the similarities.

T: Not just the terms, but the actions, apply to Hitler rather than God. This is a point kland has been making.

I wrote, “For example, what happened to Sodom was certainly horrific, but it in no way means God used force or violence. Instead, it was an act of power on His part. There was nothing arbitrary or forceful or violent about it.”

Whereas you wrote, “God is caused to withdraw His protection, which results in violence to happen to the victims who eschew God's protection. God is not violent. He doesn't use force.”

Either way the outcome is the same, namely, sinners were burned alive. You label the outcome “violence” whereas I label it “justice”. I disagree that God withdrew His protection and violence happened. Instead, I believe God employed the forces of nature to execute justice.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/11/09 11:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: The passage you posted deals with God withdrawing His protection and allowing them to be defeated in battle and attacked by fiery serpents. But it doesn’t explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker or the blasphemer. Neither one of these cases involved God withdrawing His protection and allowing the forces of man and nature to run their courses unimpeded. Do you know of any inspired passages that explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: Regarding your question regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, no, I don't know of any.

Well, that came as a surprise. Thank you being honest and straight forward. All this time I thought you knew of some but were holding out. Does this mean you do not believe, as some do, God was forced to do it because of the ignorance and hardened hearts of Moses and the Jews?

Quote:

You asked, “Why can't there be two perfect choices, or more?” The definition of “absolute perfection”, in the context of divinity, doesn’t allow for it. There is only one way that leads to heaven. All others lead to hell. There is only one God. All others are pretenders. Similarly, there can be only one right way to handle a given situation because God is the epitome of “absolute perfection”. There are too many variables for there to be more than one absolute perfect way to handle it. The idea there are two or more absolute perfect ways is counterintuitive. It eliminates the idea of absolute perfection.

T: The perfection of God doesn't imply there can be choices which are equally good. There's no reason why this should be the case. A perfect person will never make a choice worse than another choice, but that doesn't mean there can't be two or more choices which are equally good.

The idea there are two or more absolute perfect ways is counterintuitive. It eliminates the idea of absolute perfection.

Quote:

And you skipped my apology and note. Please answer the newly worded question.

Quote:

M: Yes, it was God’s “will and purpose” to withdraw His protection and permit the Jews to suffer and die the way they did; otherwise, He would have managed the outcome differently. Just because God withdraws His protection it does not mean He isn’t actively involved. He is very actively involved in making sure things play out according to His absolute perfect “will and purpose”.

“I also happen to believe it would have played out the way it did without the presence or involvement of evil angels.” By this I mean God is not dependent on Satan for things to play out according to His “will and purpose”. God is perfectly capable of making sure things play out according to the one and only right and perfect way without Satan’s presence or involvement. Do you agree? Or, do you believe God is dependent on Satan? I feel weird asking this question.

T: You ideas here are Augustinian. I disagree with this concept of God's will, which is far closer to Calvinism than Adventism. This idea would merit a thread of its own. By way of clarification, do you believe that God's will is always done?

I’ve never closely studied Augustine, Arminius, Wesley, or Calvin, so I cannot say whether or not my views are similar to their views. I believe everything God causes or permits is the result of His absolute perfect “will and purpose”.

Quote:

M: Perhaps “micromanage” means what you quoted in certain cases, but it certainly doesn’t mean this in the case of God.

T: MM, words mean what they mean. It seems like you feel that words have no objective meanings; they're simply whatever you feel like what they should mean. "Micromanage" means what it means. It doesn't matter who the subject is. You chose the use of the word. I'm simply cited what its meaning is. If you don't like what the word means, why don't you choose another word?

Does this mean you believe God sins every time He manifests jealousy?

Quote:

T: Regarding God's setting boundaries, yes, of course, otherwise Satan would kill everybody. Regarding if it was God's purpose that Paul or Peter or others be killed, no, it wasn't. However, out of the evil that others do, God is still able to achieve His purpose, which is the revelation of His character. When one returns good for evil, God accomplishes His purpose.

So, you believe Satan cannot exceed the limits enforced by God and yet you also believe it was not God’s “will and purpose” for Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus to suffer and die the way they did – is that right? What, then, was God’s “will and purpose”? And, why didn’t He enforce it?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/11/09 11:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Kland

MM, do you see some things are just not "fitting" with your view?

No.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/11/09 11:39 PM

PS - Kland, I do not appreciate you talking about me as if I'm not here. Please use the PM function on this forum to talk to Tom about me. Thank you.

Posted By: teresaq

Re: The Covenants - 01/12/09 04:08 AM

Quote:

tom: I think the idea that the angels praise God for causing death and destruction is awful. Also not pleasant is the idea that God Himself would desire being view as wishing praise for such things.

[quote=Mountain Man:
...
Also, why do you insist on misrepresenting what the angels think and feel while witnessing sinners suffering during the seven last plagues? See Revelation 16 and 18. [/quote]

i think this one, mm, is a matter of ones understanding of what is happening and what they are feeling.

if you believe they are rejoicing for the destruction of the wicked that is how you will read it. if someone else understands the picture differently that does not mean they are misrepreseng the angels.

it just means they disagree with your picture.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/12/09 07:23 AM

Quote:

Your question, as posed, is rather difficult to parse. I think my answer is "no." Did you have a point to make?

Quote:

No, of course not. This has been the point I've been making. God sent us Jesus Christ to make clear what He is really like (e.g. John 1:18.)

Quote:

You wrote, "All that we can know about God was revealed by Him." Why do you insist on misstating, thus, misrepresenting, what Ellen wrote?

I explained to you before why what I wrote is not misrepresenting what she said. What man needs to know is a subset of what man can know. Did you not understand this point?

Quote:

Also, why do you insist on misrepresenting what the angels think and feel while witnessing sinners suffering during the seven last plagues? See Revelation 16 and 18.

I would ask you the same question.

Quote:

So, you believe the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction is God's "will and purpose", right?

Not necessarily, but possibly.

Quote:

And, you think all the places in the Bible that describe God causing death and destruction must be seen as examples of the "withdraw and permit" method, right?

Yes. I believe the principles of GC 35, 36 always apply. Also the principle that force is not a principle of God's government, and that God does not use force to overcome rebellion, that force is the last resort of every false religion; I believe these principles always apply.

Quote:

If these observations are correct, then which aspect is God's "will and purpose" - 1) withdrawing and permitting, or 2) the resulting death and destruction?

I think this question is assuming a false premise.

Quote:

Is this what you think God's "will and purpose" is as described in 3SG 80, namely, to motivate sinners to choose life and not death?

Sure, this was a part of God's purpose. Wouldn't you agree? He could have some other purpose as well, but don't you think God would have wanted sinners to choose life and not death as a response to what He did?

Quote:

You insist elsewhere, if not on this thread, that the word “justice” in this quote means God.

I've never said this.

Quote:

Thus, you believe it should be interpreted to mean, “God demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed.”

I've point out that what *you* believe is equivalent to this.

Quote:

You then seem to also think we must interpret this reworded passage to mean “God demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed so that sinners can experience the inevitable result of sin when He withdraws His protection.”

This conclusion is based on a false assumption, stated above.

Quote:

So I ask again, why would God have to demand that death happens if, as you say, it is going to happen naturally as soon as He stops preventing it from happening? And, why doesn’t He demand pardon for sin instead of demanding death?

Same comment.

Quote:

The simplistic idea is that God has nothing to do with sustaining life, apart from providing a tree to eat from. MH 417 makes that clear.

Quote:

By "employ," I assume you mean manipulate or manage. In this case, God was using force.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/12/09 07:39 AM

Quote:

Do you know of any inspired passages that explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: Regarding your question regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, no, I don't know of any.

M:Well, that came as a surprise. Thank you being honest and straight forward. All this time I thought you knew of some but were holding out. Does this mean you do not believe, as some do, God was forced to do it because of the ignorance and hardened hearts of Moses and the Jews?

No. Your reasoning here is bewildering to me. Can you explain it? That I'm not aware of any Scriptures explaining something doesn't mean anything in regards to my believing or not believing something. Why would you think it should?

Quote:

The idea there are two or more absolute perfect ways is counterintuitive. It eliminates the idea of absolute perfection.

No it doesn't. Consider a perfect closed figure as being one which is equal-sided and with angels of the same size. There are triangles, squares, pentagons, etc. There needn't be one. Similarly there needn't be just one right choice.

I think your idea here is what is counter-intuitive. Everyday experience teaches us that there are decisions we make where one choice is as good as another. For example, which pair of socks you pick to wear.

Quote:

And you skipped my apology and note. Please answer the newly worded question.

What apology? I think I missed that.

Regarding your question, didn't I already answer it? If you want me to answer it again, please phrase it without reference to 3SG.

Quote:

You've certainly been heavily influenced by Augustine. That's not an unlikely thing to have happen, since his influence pervades much of Western thought.

Quote:

T: MM, words mean what they mean. It seems like you feel that words have no objective meanings; they're simply whatever you feel like what they should mean. "Micromanage" means what it means. It doesn't matter who the subject is. You chose the use of the word. I'm simply cited what its meaning is. If you don't like what the word means, why don't you choose another word?

M:Does this mean you believe God sins every time He manifests jealousy?

Since God never sins, obviously the answer to this question is no, even without considering the assumption upon which it is based. I take it by this question you don't wish to acknowledge that you misused the word "micromanage." Also, from previously, that you don't wish to acknowledge that you misused the term "Dark Ages."

Quote:

No, that's not right. The first part is, but not the second.

Quote:

What, then, was God’s “will and purpose”?

God would have people repent and come to a knowledge of the truth rather than kill His messengers.

Quote:

And, why didn’t He enforce it?

How could He force someone to repent?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 01/12/09 05:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Please use the PM function on this forum to talk to Tom about me. Thank you.

Actually that was as much for your benefit as anyone else's.

Pardon me, I will be more direct.
Mountain Man, do you think it is proper to insert and switch words which convey a different meaning then expect others to support that altered meaning?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/14/09 01:16 AM

Originally Posted By: teresaq

T: I think the idea that the angels praise God for causing death and destruction is awful. Also not pleasant is the idea that God Himself would desire being view as wishing praise for such things.

M: ... Also, why do you insist on misrepresenting what the angels think and feel while witnessing sinners suffering during the seven last plagues? See Revelation 16 and 18.

t: i think this one, mm, is a matter of ones understanding of what is happening and what they are feeling. if you believe they are rejoicing for the destruction of the wicked that is how you will read it. if someone else understands the picture differently that does not mean they are misrepreseng the angels. it just means they disagree with your picture.

Thank you.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/14/09 01:17 AM

Originally Posted By: kland

Mountain Man, do you think it is proper to insert and switch words which convey a different meaning then expect others to support that altered meaning?

No.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/14/09 03:02 AM

Quote:

M: I hear you saying you think the angels did not, before the cross, "fully understand" 1) the truth about God's kingdom and character, 2) the truth about Satan's claims and accusations, and 3) the truth about the inevitable results of sin. And, based on these things, you also believe the angels "incorrectly" expected, just before Jesus' incarnation, God to once again wipe out sinners on a wholesale scale.

Based on these observations, do you think it is likely humans can read the OT and arrive at better conclusions than you think the angels did regarding the kingdom and character of God?

T: No, of course not. This has been the point I've been making. God sent us Jesus Christ to make clear what He is really like (e.g. John 1:18.)

Can I assume, then, that you agree with my summarization of what you think about the angels? That is, they "incorrectly" expected God to wipe out the sinners instead of correctly expecting Him to send Jesus as a babe, and that they got this wrong idea from watching God employ the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction?

Quote:

M: You wrote, "All that we can know about God was revealed by Him." Why do you insist on misstating, thus, misrepresenting, what Ellen wrote?

T: I explained to you before why what I wrote is not misrepresenting what she said. What man needs to know is a subset of what man can know. Did you not understand this point?

Why not quote what she said? Why leave out key words? "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." The phrase "needs to know or can know" to me means Jesus revealed only those traits and attributes of God that 1) we are capable of comprehending and that 2) we need to know to experience salvation. That Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God is clear to me from what Jesus Himself said about it - "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth."

Quote:

M: So, you believe the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction is God's "will and purpose", right?

T: Not necessarily, but possibly.

Please explain your answer.

Quote:

M: And, you think all the places in the Bible that describe God causing death and destruction must be seen as examples of the "withdraw and permit" method, right?

T: Yes.

Thank you for answering my question. How do you describe this method? What all does it entail?

Quote:

M: If these observations are correct, then which aspect is God's "will and purpose" - 1) withdrawing and permitting, or 2) the resulting death and destruction?

T: I think this question is assuming a false premise.

Please explain .

Quote:

I assume you are referring to the ones who watched them die. But what about the ones who died? What was God's "will and purpose" concerning them?

Quote:

M: You insist elsewhere, if not on this thread, that the word “justice” in this quote means God.

T: I've never said this.

M: Thus, you believe it should be interpreted to mean, “God demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed.”

T: I've point out that what *you* believe is equivalent to this.

M: You then seem to also think we must interpret this reworded passage to mean “God demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed so that sinners can experience the inevitable result of sin when He withdraws His protection.”

T: This conclusion is based on a false assumption, stated above.

M: So I ask again, why would God have to demand that death happens if, as you say, it is going to happen naturally as soon as He stops preventing it from happening? And, why doesn’t He demand pardon for sin instead of demanding death?

T: Same comment.

Do you think we can substitute the word "God" for the word "justice" in the following sentence? "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed.” If not, why not?

Quote:

M: There is nothing simplistic about it, Tom. God ordered things from the beginning in such a way that we must regularly eat of the tree of life to perpetuate the breath of life within us. Death cannot occur while the breath of life resides within us. Yes, God must work to uphold the laws that enable to the tree of life to bear fruit and that make the planet a habitable place for humans.

T: The simplistic idea is that God has nothing to do with sustaining life, apart from providing a tree to eat from. MH 417 makes that clear.

On this point we disagree.

Quote:

M: I wrote, “For example, what happened to Sodom was certainly horrific, but it in no way means God used force or violence. Instead, it was an act of power on His part. There was nothing arbitrary or forceful or violent about it.”

Whereas you wrote, “God is caused to withdraw His protection, which results in violence to happen to the victims who eschew God's protection. God is not violent. He doesn't use force.”

Either way the outcome is the same, namely, sinners were burned alive. You label the outcome “violence” whereas I label it “justice”. I disagree that God withdrew His protection and violence happened. Instead, I believe God employed the forces of nature to execute justice.

T: By "employ," I assume you mean manipulate or manage. In this case, God was using force.

I didn't use the word "manipulate". I mean it in the following sense:

"The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world." {PP 109.1} "God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power."

"He had used the Philistines as the instrument to punish Israel, and He employed the ark to punish the Philistines." {PP 585.5} "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}

Ellen uses this concept in the opposite way, too. "Men are instruments in the hand of God, employed by Him to accomplish His purposes of grace and mercy." {GC 343.2} "His resources are infinite, and He employs them all in accomplishing His will." {Ev 250.4} "He employs the heavenly intelligences to bring divine power to combine with our human efforts." {2SM 123.4}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/14/09 04:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: Do you know of any inspired passages that explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: Regarding your question regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, no, I don't know of any.

M: Well, that came as a surprise. Thank you being honest and straight forward. All this time I thought you knew of some but were holding out. Does this mean you do not believe, as some do, God was forced to do it because of the ignorance and hardened hearts of Moses and the Jews?

T: No. Your reasoning here is bewildering to me. Can you explain it? That I'm not aware of any Scriptures explaining something doesn't mean anything in regards to my believing or not believing something. Why would you think it should?

Since you don’t know of any inspired passages that explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer I assumed you disagreed with the view I posted above. My bad. Let me ask instead – Do you believe, as some do, that God was forced to commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate the ignorance and hardened hearts of Moses and the Jews, that He had to do it to retain their respect and attention long enough to show them the "right way"?

Quote:

M: The idea there are two or more absolute perfect ways is counterintuitive. It eliminates the idea of absolute perfection.

T: No it doesn't. Consider a perfect closed figure as being one which is equal-sided and with angels of the same size. There are triangles, squares, pentagons, etc. There needn't be one. Similarly there needn't be just one right choice.

I think your idea here is what is counter-intuitive. Everyday experience teaches us that there are decisions we make where one choice is as good as another. For example, which pair of socks you pick to wear.

But we’re not talking about shapes and socks. We’re talking about God.

Quote:

M: I included the history of this point in the box above. I quoted 3SG 80 and said God did and does these kinds of things, to which you replied, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Do you agree with me that God does indeed do these kinds of things? NOTE: I’m not here referring to when I suggested elsewhere you credit Satan with doing them; instead, I’m referring to what we said here (in the first two posts in the box above [omitted by Tom]).

T: You skipped the most important part, where you took her quote and replaced "God" with "Satan."

M: And you skipped my apology and note. Please answer the newly worded question.

T: What apology? I think I missed that. Regarding your question, didn't I already answer it? If you want me to answer it again, please phrase it without reference to 3SG.

Did you also miss the note? The apology was in the box you omitted. The quote in 3SG 80 is the focus on the question. I cannot omit it. You have not answered the new and improved question. Here it is again: Do you agree with me that God does indeed do these kinds of things [in the quote you omitted]?

Quote:

M: I’ve never closely studied Augustine, Arminius, Wesley, or Calvin, so I cannot say whether or not my views are similar to their views. I believe everything God causes or permits is the result of His absolute perfect “will and purpose”.

T: You've certainly been heavily influenced by Augustine. That's not an unlikely thing to have happen, since his influence pervades much of Western thought.

If Augustine happens to agree with the truth then it doesn’t surprise me that our views agree. But you didn’t answer my question. Here it is again: Do you agree that everything God causes or permits is the result of His absolute perfect “will and purpose”? If not, does it mean you believe sometimes things get out of hand, that things happen that exceed His established limits and boundaries? If not, please explain what you do believe. Thank you.

Quote:

Are you implying, then, that sometimes the word “jealousy” doesn’t mean something sinful, that the immediate context determines whether acting or feeling jealous is sinful or not? Can sinners act or feel “jealous” without sinning?

Quote:

M: So, you believe Satan cannot exceed the limits enforced by God and yet you also believe it was not God’s “will and purpose” for Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus to suffer and die the way they did – is that right?

T: No, that's not right. The first part is, but not the second.

M: What, then, was God’s “will and purpose”?

T: God would have people repent and come to a knowledge of the truth rather than kill His messengers.

M: And, why didn’t He enforce it?

T: How could He force someone to repent?

So, you agree with me that Satan cannot exceed the limits enforced by God. How does He enforce the limits? And, why? What does He do to prevent it and what does He do to permit it?

Regarding the second part above. So, you do not believe it was God’s “will and purpose” for Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus to suffer and die the way they did? Why, then, did they suffer and die the way they did? Did Satan exceed the limits established by God? If not, then please explain why they died the way they did. Why didn’t God intervene and prevent it from playing out the way it did? What were God’s limits in each of their cases? How did God envision them dying? Why didn’t ensure it played out according to His “will and purpose”?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/14/09 11:10 AM

Quote:

You seem to be "summary-challenged," in the sense of being able to summarize things in a way I would agree with. No, I don't agree with your summary.

Ellen White wrote:

Quote:

"Notwithstanding this terrible lesson, men had no sooner begun to multiply once more, than rebellion and vice became widespread. Satan seemed to have taken control of the world. The time came that a change must be made, or the image of God would be wholly obliterated from the hearts of the beings He had created. All heaven watched the movements of God with intense interest. Would He once more manifest His wrath? Would He destroy the world by fire? The angels thought that the time had come to strike the blow of justice, whom, lo, to their wondering vision was unveiled the plan of salvation." MS 22, January 10, 1890

I quoted this. I don't know how you got from this to your summary. I agree with what she wrote here. The angels had a misunderstanding here. They expected one thing but another happened. My point is that if even the angels were not understanding things correctly until the cross, because of Satan's sophistry, why should we think that men can do better?

Quote:

I could ask the same thing of you. At least my paraphrase doesn't change her meaning. "She wrote that all man needs to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." It seems clear to me that she started to write, "All that man needs to know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son," and decided to strengthen that thought to "or can know of God," which is a far stronger statement than simply "needs to know of God."

Your idea limits she said significantly, to a very small subset of what her statement actually says. The very next thing after her statement is a quote of John 1:18, which says that Jesus Christ came to show us what God is really like (CEV). There's nothing in John's statement or thought which limits Christ's work to covering only what is essential to one's salvation. Nor in hers. Certainly Christ's work of revealing the Father includes the purpose of enabling one to be saved, but it's not limited to that.

Quote:

M: So, you believe the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction is God's "will and purpose", right?

T: Not necessarily, but possibly.

M:Please explain your answer.

Your question is pretty vague. I think what I had in mind is that in certain cases, such as in the 3SG passage, God could have a specific purpose or purposes in mind, such as those she pointed out, and other times not have such a specific purpose or purposes.

Quote:

M: Is this what you think God's "will and purpose" is as described in 3SG 80, namely, to motivate sinners to choose life and not death?

T: Sure, this was a part of God's purpose. Wouldn't you agree? He could have some other purpose as well, but don't you think God would have wanted sinners to choose life and not death as a response to what He did?

I assume you are referring to the ones who watched them die. But what about the ones who died? What was God's "will and purpose" concerning them?

I think God had the same will for them, that they repent and be saved.

Quote:

No, because I think it would convey a meaning which could be better expressed differently (Specifically, the quotes I've repeatedly presented of Fifield's in regards to what I understand this quote to mean conveys the thought well).

Quote:

T: The simplistic idea is that God has nothing to do with sustaining life, apart from providing a tree to eat from. MH 417 makes that clear.

M:On this point we disagree.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. Are you disagreeing that MH 417 says that God is not active in sustaining the life of man?

Quote:

T: By "employ," I assume you mean manipulate or manage. In this case, God was using force.

M:I didn't use the word "manipulate".

You have in the past. "Micromanage" you've used as well.

"Employed" I understand to be synonymous with "made use of." This could be either active or passive.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/14/09 11:50 AM

Quote:

No, I don't disagree with your view because of some specific inspired text dealing with this specific instance, but on the basis of general principles that inspiration teaches.

Quote:

Let me ask instead – Do you believe, as some do, that God was forced to commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate the ignorance and hardened hearts of Moses and the Jews, that He had to do it to retain their respect and attention long enough to show them the "right way"?

No. Who did you have in mind?

Quote:

No on both accounts. We're talking about choices.

There's no reason to believe that God is always constrained to one choice. He could have more than one viable choice available to Him. There's no reason to suggest otherwise. The fact that God is perfect in no way implies that *choices* He might make must be limited. There could be more than one valid choice available. We can rightly assert that there is no *better* choice that God could make than what makes in a given circumstance, but not that there is no choice which is as good.

Quote:

Did you also miss the note? The apology was in the box you omitted.

What box did I omit? Could you repost it please?

Quote:

The quote in 3SG 80 is the focus on the question. I cannot omit it. You have not answered the new and improved question. Here it is again: Do you agree with me that God does indeed do these kinds of things [in the quote you omitted]?

He obviously did the things mentioned in 3SG 80 in the circumstances that quote referenced.

Quote:

If Augustine happens to agree with the truth then it doesn’t surprise me that our views agree.

I'd suggest looking into this; that is, if Augustine agrees with the truth.

Quote:

But you didn’t answer my question. Here it is again: Do you agree that everything God causes or permits is the result of His absolute perfect “will and purpose”? If not, does it mean you believe sometimes things get out of hand, that things happen that exceed His established limits and boundaries? If not, please explain what you do believe. Thank you.

No to both questions. Your question is based on an Augustinian paradigm, which is itself inspired by Hellenistic thought. The concept of "absolute perfection" that you referenced is Platonic. This would take quite a bit of time to explain adequately, which I cannot do right now. Basically you're assuming that everything that happens has a specific purpose on the part of God. But many things happen which are not God's will, nor something God permits for some specific purpose. They are just evil things which happen because evil beings choose to do these evil things. They do not occur because of some will or purpose of God.

However, that being said, in spite of these evil things which God permits to happen, against His will, God is able to accomplish His will and purpose. Thus God can make evil to accomplish His will and purpose even though the evil itself was not God's will or purpose.

Quote:

No. The phrase "even without considering the assumption upon which it is based" makes clear this is not being implied.

Quote:

So, you agree with me that Satan cannot exceed the limits enforced by God.

Obviously. How could this not be the case?

Quote:

How does He enforce the limits? And, why? What does He do to prevent it and what does He do to permit it?

Regarding how, I know of no communication from God where He informs us how He does this. We know that force is not a principle of His government, so we can rule that out.

Regarding why, if He didn't, as I've stated a number of times, Satan would destroy everybody. As to preventing it, this looks to mean the same thing as "enforcing the limits." If so, I addressed these questions immediately above. If it means something else, you'd have to explain what.

Quote:

Regarding the second part above. So, you do not believe it was God’s “will and purpose” for Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus to suffer and die the way they did?

No. It was Satan's will that they suffer and die the way they did.

Quote:

Why, then, did they suffer and die the way they did?

Because evil beings inspired and committed evil deeds.

Quote:

Did Satan exceed the limits established by God?

How would this be possible?

Quote:

If not, then please explain why they died the way they did.

Because evil beings did evil things.

Quote:

Why didn’t God intervene and prevent it from playing out the way it did?

This could be answered in respect to any bad thing that happens. When a child dies, this is a natural question. Why did God permit this to happen? On a case by case basis, I don't think we can know these types of questions until the judgment when we have access to all the information that God had access to when He made the decisions He made.

Quote:

What were God’s limits in each of their cases?

What?

Quote:

How did God envision them dying?

Not sure what you're asking here?

Quote:

Why didn’t ensure it played out according to His “will and purpose”?

This gets back to the question I asked you above, which you didn't address. How can God force people to repent?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 01/14/09 05:50 PM

Mountain Man,

Was it God or Jesus in the old testament?
More specifically, who do you believe was in the pillar of fire?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/15/09 12:21 AM

Originally Posted By: kland

Mountain Man,

Was it God or Jesus in the old testament?
More specifically, who do you believe was in the pillar of fire?

Jesus.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 01/15/09 03:09 PM

So, I'm curious what your thoughts are on Jesus representing Jesus.

I don't know if I'm asking it correctly. Maybe another way is, do you see Jesus behaving one way in the Old testament, but yet in a totally different way in the New?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/16/09 06:48 PM

Kland, yes, I see Jesus doing things in the OT that He didn't do while He was here in the flesh. For example, in the OT He created a planet inhabited with plants, animals and people. He also employed the forces of nature and caused a wolrd-wide flood. He commanded Moses to stone people to death. Etc, etc, etc. Jesus did none of these things while here in the flesh.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/16/09 07:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: Can I assume, then, that you agree with my summarization of what you think about the angels? That is, they "incorrectly" expected God to wipe out the sinners instead of correctly expecting Him to send Jesus as a babe, and that they got this wrong idea from watching God employ the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction?

T: The angels had a misunderstanding here. They expected one thing but another happened. My point is that if even the angels were not understanding things correctly until the cross, because of Satan's sophistry, why should we think that men can do better?

What is it exactly about my summary of your view do you disagree with? I based it on things you posted here and elsewhere. Also, what about it do you agree with?

Quote:

On this we disagree. Please, in the future, do not quote this passage as if your view is right and mine is wrong and then try to prove something based on it. It is obvious Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God. He said so Himself.

Quote:

M: So, you believe the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction is God's "will and purpose", right?

T: Not necessarily, but possibly.

M:Please explain your answer.

T: Your question is pretty vague. I think what I had in mind is that in certain cases, such as in the 3SG passage, God could have a specific purpose or purposes in mind, such as those she pointed out, and other times not have such a specific purpose or purposes.

Are you suggesting we must look at each case individually to determine what God's "will and purpose" is, that one-size-fits-all does not apply?

Quote:

M: Is this what you think God's "will and purpose" is as described in 3SG 80, namely, to motivate sinners to choose life and not death?

T: Sure, this was a part of God's purpose. Wouldn't you agree? He could have some other purpose as well, but don't you think God would have wanted sinners to choose life and not death as a response to what He did?

M: I assume you are referring to the ones who watched them die. But what about the ones who died? What was God's "will and purpose" concerning them?

T: I think God had the same will for them, that they repent and be saved.

Can full-cup sinners repent and be saved after God employs the "withdraw and permit" method of killing them?

Quote:

M: Do you think we can substitute the word "God" for the word "justice" in the following sentence? "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed.” If not, why not?

T: No, because I think it would convey a meaning which could be better expressed differently (Specifically, the quotes I've repeatedly presented of Fifield's in regards to what I understand this quote to mean conveys the thought well).
Is "justice" in this quote a sentient being? If not, what does it represent? Does it represent God or Satan or someone else?

[quote]T: The simplistic idea is that God has nothing to do with sustaining life, apart from providing a tree to eat from. MH 417 makes that clear.

M:On this point we disagree.

T: I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. Are you disagreeing that MH 417 says that God is not active in sustaining the life of man?

Please include everything I said about it.

Quote:

T: By "employ," I assume you mean manipulate or manage. In this case, God was using force.

M:I didn't use the word "manipulate".

T: You have in the past. "Micromanage" you've used as well.
"Employed" I understand to be synonymous with "made use of." This could be either active or passive.

God employs His enemies and the forces of nature to punish full-cup sinners. He manages the outcome of their choices to ensure a favorable end of the GC. Nothing is left to chance or Satan or sinners.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/16/09 08:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

T: No. Your reasoning here is bewildering to me. Can you explain it? That I'm not aware of any Scriptures explaining something doesn't mean anything in regards to my believing or not believing something. Why would you think it should?

M:Since you don’t know of any inspired passages that explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer I assumed you disagreed with the view I posted above. My bad.

T: No, I don't disagree with your view because of some specific inspired text dealing with this specific instance, but on the basis of general principles that inspiration teaches.

M: Let me ask instead – Do you believe, as some do, that God was forced to commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate the ignorance and hardened hearts of Moses and the Jews, that He had to do it to retain their respect and attention long enough to show them the "right way"?

T: No. Who did you have in mind?

You have yet to explain why. Will you ever?

Quote:

T:I think your idea here is what is counter-intuitive. Everyday experience teaches us that there are decisions we make where one choice is as good as another. For example, which pair of socks you pick to wear.

M:But we’re not talking about shapes and socks. We’re talking about God.

T: No on both accounts. We're talking about choices. There's no reason to believe that God is always constrained to one choice. He could have more than one viable choice available to Him. There's no reason to suggest otherwise. The fact that God is perfect in no way implies that *choices* He might make must be limited. There could be more than one valid choice available. We can rightly assert that there is no *better* choice that God could make than what makes in a given circumstance, but not that there is no choice which is as good.

On this we disagree.

Quote:

M: Did you also miss the note? The apology was in the box you omitted.

T: What box did I omit? Could you repost it please?

That's the problem with leaving out aspects of the discussion.

Quote:

M: The quote in 3SG 80 is the focus on the question. I cannot omit it. You have not answered the new and improved question. Here it is again: Do you agree with me that God does indeed do these kinds of things [in the quote you omitted]?

T: He obviously did the things mentioned in 3SG 80 in the circumstances that quote referenced.

Thank you for answering my question.

Quote:

M: But you didn’t answer my question. Here it is again: Do you agree that everything God causes or permits is the result of His absolute perfect “will and purpose”? If not, does it mean you believe sometimes things get out of hand, that things happen that exceed His established limits and boundaries? If not, please explain what you do believe. Thank you.

T: No to both questions. Your question is based on an Augustinian paradigm, which is itself inspired by Hellenistic thought. The concept of "absolute perfection" that you referenced is Platonic. This would take quite a bit of time to explain adequately, which I cannot do right now. Basically you're assuming that everything that happens has a specific purpose on the part of God. But many things happen which are not God's will, nor something God permits for some specific purpose. They are just evil things which happen because evil beings choose to do these evil things. They do not occur because of some will or purpose of God.

However, that being said, in spite of these evil things which God permits to happen, against His will, God is able to accomplish His will and purpose. Thus God can make evil to accomplish His will and purpose even though the evil itself was not God's will or purpose.

I don't care one iota about the old timers you named above. Mentioning their names mean nothing to me. Nor do I believe God causes people to make evil choices or to evil things. What I do believe is that God manages the outcome of the choices they make to ensure the GC ends favorably. He establishes and enforces limits beyond which His enemies cannot pass.

Quote:

M: Does this mean you believe God sins every time He manifests jealousy?

T: Since God never sins, obviously the answer to this question is no, even without considering the assumption upon which it is based.

M:Are you implying, then, that sometimes the word “jealousy” doesn’t mean something sinful, that the immediate context determines whether acting or feeling jealous is sinful or not? Can sinners act or feel “jealous” without sinning?

T: No. The phrase "even without considering the assumption upon which it is based" makes clear this is not being implied.

I don't understand your answer. Do you believe the word "jealous" means something different in the case of God?

Quote:

M: So, you agree with me that Satan cannot exceed the limits enforced by God.

T: Obviously. How could this not be the case?

Thank you for answering my question.

Quote:

M: How does He enforce the limits? And, why? What does He do to prevent it and what does He do to permit it?

T: Regarding how, I know of no communication from God where He informs us how He does this. We know that force is not a principle of His government, so we can rule that out.

Regarding why, if He didn't, as I've stated a number of times, Satan would destroy everybody. As to preventing it, this looks to mean the same thing as "enforcing the limits." If so, I addressed these questions immediately above. If it means something else, you'd have to explain what.

Thank you for answering my question.

Quote:

M: Regarding the second part above. So, you do not believe it was God’s “will and purpose” for Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus to suffer and die the way they did?

T: No. It was Satan's will that they suffer and die the way they did.

Interesting.

Quote:

M: Why, then, did they suffer and die the way they did?

T: Because evil beings inspired and committed evil deeds.

Interesting.

Quote:

M: Did Satan exceed the limits established by God?

T: How would this be possible?

You tell me.

Quote:

M: If not, then please explain why they died the way they did.

T: Because evil beings did evil things.

Interesting.

Quote:

M: Why didn’t God intervene and prevent it from playing out the way it did?

T: This could be answered in respect to any bad thing that happens. When a child dies, this is a natural question. Why did God permit this to happen? On a case by case basis, I don't think we can know these types of questions until the judgment when we have access to all the information that God had access to when He made the decisions He made.

I agree.

Quote:

M: What were God’s limits in each of their cases?

T: What?

God establishes and enforces limits beyond which His enemies cannot go. Did the way they die exceed those limits?

Quote:

M: How did God envision them dying?

T: Not sure what you're asking here?

Everyone dies. Did they die in a way that exceeded His limits?

Quote:

M: Why didn’t He ensure it played out according to His “will and purpose”?

T: This gets back to the question I asked you above, which you didn't address. How can God force people to repent?

Why didn't God ensure that they (the people named above) died according to His "will and purpose"? Or, did He? Did He intend for them to die some other way? He intend for them to die of natural causes?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 01/16/09 09:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Why?

Why, when He had good reason and was urged by others, did He not maim, kill, and torture men, women, and children?

You keep bringing up creation. He finished and rested. Why would you bring that up that He didn't create more -- that doesn't make sense to bring that up.

The world had already been flooded by removing His protection. Since the water had already reached its lowest point (the ocean), it would not flood again -- just like He promised. I don't know why you would you bring that up, either.

I mean, He didn't talk to Adam and Eve, either. But wouldn't you think that is non relevant to the topic being discussed?

But, why do you not think there was good reason for Him to stone people? In fact, He quite contradicted that idea.

WHY?

We're not talking about specific instances any more than all specific instances need be explicitly detailed in order to apply similar instances to His character. If Jesus was to represent His character, why do you see the apparent contradiction (contradiction based upon your responses)?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/17/09 12:32 AM

Quote:

Your mindset. You view God as destroying and doing destructive things. I read in the SOP that Satan is the destroyer and the Lord is the restorer. I would not say something like, "God employs the 'withdraw and permit' method of causing death and destruction." I would say that others cause God to withdraw His protection, and then calamity follows. For example:

Quote:

By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. (GC 35)

Instead of "Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will" other unfortunate results could be included.

Quote:

I based it on things you posted here and elsewhere. Also, what about it do you agree with?

I agree that the angels misunderstood God's intentions, and were not expecting Christ to come.

Quote:

M: Why not quote what she said? Why leave out key words? "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." The phrase "needs to know or can know" to me means Jesus revealed only those traits and attributes of God that 1) we are capable of comprehending and that 2) we need to know to experience salvation.

T: Your idea limits she said significantly, to a very small subset of what her statement actually says.

On this we disagree. Please, in the future, do not quote this passage as if your view is right and mine is wrong and then try to prove something based on it. It is obvious Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God. He said so Himself.

I'll agree with this request if you'll agree not to quote the following passage as if your view were right:

Quote:

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere.(GC 612)

Quote:

Are you suggesting we must look at each case individually to determine what God's "will and purpose" is, that one-size-fits-all does not apply?

No, I'm not suggesting this. To even address this, one would need to address what God's "will and purpose" is. In a general sense, God's will and purpose is that all repent and be saved. Also in a general sense, God's purpose is to bring an end to sin. If one accepts this latter principle for what God's "will and purpose" is, I would agree that a one-size-fits-all approach would work. That is, God works in such a way as to bring sin to an end as quickly as possible.

Quote:

T: The simplistic idea is that God has nothing to do with sustaining life, apart from providing a tree to eat from. MH 417 makes that clear.

M:On this point we disagree.

T: I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. Are you disagreeing that MH 417 says that God is not active in sustaining the life of man?

M:Please include everything I said about it.

I'm asking you're disagreeing with. You shouldn't need to see everything you've written on this to know what you disagree with, I wouldn't think. If you think this is necessary, you can do this task.

Quote:

You seem to have an Augustinian perspective. Let me ask a simple question to clarify this. Do you believe that whenever anything happens, it happens because it is God's will that the given thing should happen? (By "God's will" here, I do not mean "God's permissive will").

To clarify, I would agree that God permits certain things to happen. But I believe there are things which happen which are contrary to God's will, meaning that He would prefer that something else happened than what He permits to happen.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/17/09 01:07 AM

Quote:

M: Let me ask instead – Do you believe, as some do, that God was forced to commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate the ignorance and hardened hearts of Moses and the Jews, that He had to do it to retain their respect and attention long enough to show them the "right way"?

T: No. Who did you have in mind?

M:You have yet to explain why. Will you ever?

I'm sent you many pages in reference to this question. You don't agree with the explanation, which is your prerogative, but you needn't suggest no explanation has been suggested.

Quote:

M: Did you also miss the note? The apology was in the box you omitted.

T: What box did I omit? Could you repost it please?

M:That's the problem with leaving out aspects of the discussion.

MM, I don't recall any apology. If you've made an apology, I'd like to hear it. You can repeat it from memory; that would be fine.

Quote:

A famous quote says:

Quote:

Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it (paraphrase of George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1)

Regarding what you say you believe, the last two sentences, I don't know anybody (i.e. any believer) who doesn't believe these things.

Quote:

You asked, "Does this mean you believe God sins every time He manifests jealousy?" Since God never sins, the conclusion is moot. This is a fundamental principle of logic.

"Jealous" has different meanings. For example, I can say I jealously guard my time. This has a similar meaning to what we see in Scripture where it says God is jealous.

Quote:

M: So, you agree with me that Satan cannot exceed the limits enforced by God.

T: Obviously. How could this not be the case?

M:Thank you for answering my question.

Please return the favor. How could this not be the case?

Quote:

M: Did Satan exceed the limits established by God?

T: How would this be possible?

M:You tell me.

You asked the question, MM! Why did you ask it? Do you think it's possible Satan could exceed the limits established by God? (not that you think this does happen, but that it could happen)

Quote:

M: Why didn’t He ensure it played out according to His “will and purpose”?

T: This gets back to the question I asked you above, which you didn't address. How can God force people to repent?

M:Why didn't God ensure that they (the people named above) died according to His "will and purpose"? Or, did He? Did He intend for them to die some other way? He intend for them to die of natural causes?

He intended that they repent and live. God is not willing that any should perish but come to a knowledge of the truth.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/17/09 07:41 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

I don't see how we can talk about it without naming and comparing specific instances. Either Jesus demonstrated every aspect of God's kingdom and character there is to know or He didn't. What do you believe? Did He or didn't He? I believe it is obvious He didn't.

Jesus did indeed give the order for someone without sin to cast the first stone at the women caught in the act of adultery. He did not do it Himself because the law of Moses specified that the person who caught them was supposed to be the first one to cast a stone. However, I do not believe it was in His heart to do so in this specific case. He understood the situation perfectly, and the circumstances did not lend themselves to capital punishment. Besides, Roman law disallowed it.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/17/09 07:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: God employs His enemies and the forces of nature to punish full-cup sinners. He manages the outcome of their choices to ensure a favorable end of the GC. Nothing is left to chance or Satan or sinners.

T: You seem to have an Augustinian perspective. Let me ask a simple question to clarify this. Do you believe that whenever anything happens, it happens because it is God's will that the given thing should happen? (By "God's will" here, I do not mean "God's permissive will").

To clarify, I would agree that God permits certain things to happen. But I believe there are things which happen which are contrary to God's will, meaning that He would prefer that something else happened than what He permits to happen.

God does not want sinners to make sinful choices. Nor does He sit around hoping they do so that He can punish them. He does not delight in punishing sinners.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/17/09 07:54 PM

In reference to 107592

Tom, you have never explained why God commanded Moses to kill sinners. Never!

I apologized for assuming you think 3SG 80 describes Satan, instead of God, using the forces of nature to cause death and destruction.

The last question was in reference to Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus. Your answer seems off topic.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/18/09 01:22 AM

1.Regarding God's commanding Moses to kill sinners, I sent many pages dealing with the father/hunter, and stated I could not present the concept more clearly than the author did there.

2.Thank you for 3SG 80 explanation.

3.Regarding last question, it is not God's will that people be killed. The people you listed were killed because evil being inspired (e.g. angels) or evil beings killed them(men). God would have preferred that the evil men repented in response to the preaching if His messengers as opposed to killing them.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/18/09 08:24 PM

1. The son knew his father's will very well and chose to hunt anyhow. This does not depict the Jews. They had no idea what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer so they asked Moses to inquire of God. Why didn't God take the opportunity to explain His will? Or, did He?

2. You are welcome.

3. Are you saying it was not God's will and purpose for Jesus to die the way He did? And, are you implying He wanted the others to die of natural causes instead?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/18/09 10:48 PM

1.The purpose of the father/hunter analogy is to illustrate how the counsel of someone taken out of context can give a false impression. In the case of the hunter, the false impression is that the father approves of hunting. In the case of God, the false impression is that God approves of killing.

In Christ we see what God's true views are, detached from the constraints the COI imposed. We see how Christ acted when given the opportunity to stone one guilty of breaking the law of Moses. Your insinuation that Christ did not stone the woman because the Israelites were under Roman rule has a hollow ring.

Quote:

In His act of pardoning this woman and encouraging her to live a better life, the character of Jesus shines forth in the beauty of perfect righteousness. While He does not palliate sin, nor lessen the sense of guilt, He seeks not to condemn, but to save. The world had for this erring woman only contempt and scorn; but Jesus speaks words of comfort and hope. The Sinless One pities the weakness of the sinner, and reaches to her a helping hand. While the hypocritical Pharisees denounce, Jesus bids her, "Go, and sin no more." (DA 462; emphasis mine)

On another occasion, Christ was urged to destroy, and He responded in a similar manner:

Quote:

54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9)

When we see God revealing His character unshackled as the father in the hunter story was, we see Him consistently acting and counseling in a non-violent way. Christ never suggested using force or killing someone as the way to solve a problem.

3.I originally spoke in terms of Peter and other disciple's deaths. I said that it was not God's will and purpose that they die, but that evil being inspired and caused their death. God would rather that they repent. The case of of Jesus is more involved, since our redemption is involved, although similar principles apply. If you wish to pursue this further, that's fine, but please separate questions regarding Jesus' death from those involving Peter or other disciples.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 01/19/09 04:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: kland

We're not talking about specific instances any more than all specific instances need be explicitly detailed in order to apply similar instances to His character. If Jesus was to represent His character, why do you see the apparent contradiction (contradiction based upon your responses)?

I guess it would follow since you apply only a specific application to the following although I don't know under what specific conditions:
God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (GC 35-37)

I know some evolutionists who reject the Bible because they don't know who Cain married. Since the Bible doesn't specifically say Adam and Eve had other children near Cain's age, it didn't happen. Even though a man an woman lived almost a thousand years, since the Bible doesn't specifically say they had sex more than at most three times (if even then), then it didn't happen.

Perhaps you could do a search in Ellen White's writings for the phrase, "general principles". Here's one to get you started:

Quote:

4T pg. 323: The word of God abounds in general principles for the formation of correct habits of living, and the testimonies, general and personal, have been calculated to call their attention more especially to these principles;

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/20/09 11:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

This doesn't answer my question why God commanded Moses to kill the sinners.

Quote:

T: I originally spoke in terms of Peter and other disciple's deaths. I said that it was not God's will and purpose that they die, but that evil being inspired and caused their death. God would rather that they repent.

But the apostles named above did die. Are you saying God's will and purpose was not served in the way they died? If so, did His enemies exceed His limits? If not, how did God intend for them to die? Did God intervene and ensure they died in a way He was willing to permit? Or, did they die in a way differently than He was willing to permit?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 01/20/09 11:04 PM

PS - I'll be away on assignment until 5 Feb.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/20/09 11:48 PM

Quote:

T:When we see God revealing His character unshackled as the father in the hunter story was, we see Him consistently acting and counseling in a non-violent way. Christ never suggested using force or killing someone as the way to solve a problem.

M:This doesn't answer my question why God commanded Moses to kill the sinners.

I think it does. Let's get a third opinion. kland, what do you think?

Quote:

But the apostles named above did die. Are you saying God's will and purpose was not served in the way they died?

If you're talking about the fact that they died, no, it wasn't God's will that those who heard them preached kill them. His will was that they respond to their preaching and repent.

Quote:

If so, did His enemies exceed His limits?

You're asking if those who killed Peter and the others did something which God did not permit? This looks to be what you're asking, but this is clearly a pointless question. Or did I misunderstand your question?

Quote:

If not, how did God intend for them to die?

Of old age, peacefully.

Quote:

Did God intervene and ensure they died in a way He was willing to permit?

No.

Quote:

Or, did they die in a way differently than He was willing to permit?

You're asking if they died in some different way than they died? I don't understand this question.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 01/21/09 01:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Quote:

I think it does. Let's get a third opinion. kland, what do you think?

Well, that's what I've been saying and also have been saying that you've been saying. Which is exactly what MM has been rejecting as having never been explained. And some of my first comments addressed the concept which were also rejected.

But, I think MM is wanting something more specific. Perhaps something from Ellen White along the lines of:
Mountain Man, this is for you. The general principle of the hunter story fits with God/Jesus.

Maybe.

But then, maybe it wouldn't answer it for him. I can hardly wait for his answer to my above comment. It seems he previously responded that the location of Jesus determines His character. Then in the punish thread, his last comments appeared more definitely to support that viewpoint. It is interesting he used the phrase, "every aspect", but does seem to imply "every instance".

MM, I await your reply when you get back. What differences do you see between aspect and instance or general principle and specific instance?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 01/21/09 05:14 AM

In what way was God shackled when He commanded Moses to kill those two guys? Was Jesus ever shackled in this way when He was here, that is, did He ever command anyone to kill a sinner?

Did I say God was shackled? Anyway, I've addressed this several times in pointing out that God was dealing with an ignorant and backward people. The father/hunter analogy also dealt with this issue.

Regarding Jesus viz a viz the God of the OT, Jesus was here in the flesh among us, so it was easier for God to be revealed in a way that would be less likely to be misunderstood. Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

Quote:

No, I didn't say that. What I said is right above your response here. What I said is what I said. To clarify, God can work through evil things to accomplish His will. That doesn't mean God willed for the evil thing to happen.

The way you phrased things above is very unclear. God's will and purpose could be served by means of what God accomplished in spite of some evil which He permits.

Quote:

Why, then, did they die in the way they did?

As I stated, because evil beings so desired and acted.

Quote:

Did Satan or sinners pass the boundaries established by God?

What do you mean? How would that be possible?

Quote:

Did they do something prohibited by God?

Same question.

Quote:

Or, did God allow them to die in the way they did, that is, He did not intervene because it was within His established limits?

Also, you wrote, "How could anything happen which God did not permit?" Is your answer to this question the same as mine, namely, nothing happens without God's permission.

Is this a question? This sentence starts with the word "Is," which indicates it is, but there's no question mark at the end, so it's not clear to me whether you are asserting something or asking something.

I asked you several questions, which you didn't answer. Instead you responded that I was agreeing with you. I wasn't agreeing with you, but asking you questions, which you didn't answer. I pointed this out to you, and asked the questions again. I'm now asking a third time:

Quote:

What is the point? I'm trying understand what you believe about God as it relates to how and why people (saints and sinners) suffer and die.

How does asking questions which you already know the answer to help you do this? For example, you ask:

Quote:

Did Satan or sinners pass the boundaries established by God?

Surely you know this is impossible, don't you?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/08/09 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

So if you ask the question, "Where did Jesus do such and such during His earthly mission which we see God doing in the OT" and can't find Him doing such, rather than reaching the conclusion that Jesus Christ's revelation of God is lacking, a better conclusion would be that our understanding of what God was doing in the OT is what's lacking.

Yes, I agree with you that Jesus never commanded or commissioned people to kill sinners. Based on this insight are you telling me God did not command Moses to kill sinners? If so, do you think the following passages were mistranslated?

Leviticus
24:23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Numbers
15:36 And all the congregation brought him {the Sabbath-breaker} without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Quote:

M: Also, you wrote, "How could anything happen which God did not permit?" Is your answer to this question the same as mine, namely, nothing happens without God's permission.

T: Is this a question? This sentence starts with the word "Is," which indicates it is, but there's no question mark at the end, so it's not clear to me whether you are asserting something or asking something.

Yes, it was a question. Sorry for the confusion. I should have included a question mark. My bad. I am still interested in your answer if you are willing to answer my question.

Quote:

M: Did Satan or sinners pass the boundaries established by God?

T: What do you mean? How would that be possible?

M: Did they do something prohibited by God?

T: Same question.

M: Or, did God allow them to die in the way they did, that is, He did not intervene because it was within His established limits?

T: How could anything happen which God did not permit? What's the point to these questions, MM?

M: I'm glad we agree nothing happens on this planet without God's permission.

T: First of all, this isn't what you said. Second of all, I didn't agree with you on anything. Thirdly, you didn't answer my questions, which I'm repeating here:

M: You wrote, "How could anything happen which God did not permit?" Is your answer to this question the same as mine, namely, nothing happens without God's permission? What is the point? I'm trying understand what you believe about God as it relates to how and why people (saints and sinners) suffer and die.

T: I asked you several questions, which you didn't answer. Instead you responded that I was agreeing with you. I wasn't agreeing with you, but asking you questions, which you didn't answer. I pointed this out to you, and asked the questions again. I'm now asking a third time.

I've recreated the entire volley relating to our comments and questions regarding this point. I asked 3 questions to which you asked 5 additional questions. When I attempted to find common ground you became indignant and made it clear you didn't agree with any of the questions I posed.

So, let's start over. Instead of asking questions in response to my questions, please consider simply answering my questions first and then try following them up with questions of your own. Does that sound fair to you? If not, please suggest an alternate strategy. Thank you.

Here are the original questions which were asked in relation to how and why Peter, Paul, and John died:

1. Did Satan or sinners pass the boundaries established by God?
2. Did they do something prohibited by God?
3. Or, did God allow them to die in the way they did, that is, He did not intervene because it was within His established limits?

Quote:

M: What is the point? I'm trying understand what *you* believe about God as it relates to how and why people (saints and sinners) suffer and die.

T: How does asking questions which you already know the answer to help you do this? For example, you ask: "Did Satan or sinners pass the boundaries established by God?" Surely you know this is impossible, don't you?

I'm trying understand what *you* believe about God as it relates to how and why people (saints and sinners) suffer and die. The point of my asking this question is due to the fact I do not understand what you believe about it. I think I know what you believe about it but you regularly rebuke me for stating my opinion about what you believe. I felt it would be safer to simply ask you.

You wrote, "'Did Satan or sinners pass the boundaries established by God?' Surely you know this is impossible, don't you?" You seem to implying that you believe it is impossible for Satan and sinners to pass the boundaries established by God. Is this what you believe? If so, then I'm glad we agree nothing happens on this planet without God's permission, that no one can pass the limits set up by God.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/09/09 12:50 AM

Quote:

I'm not sure that "mistranslated" would be the best way of putting it. "Misunderstood" I think is a better way of putting it. Before Christ came, God was greatly misunderstood. The following explains the principle I have in mind:

Quote:

The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 22)

Quote:

"How could anything happen which God did not permit?" Is your answer to this question the same as mine, namely, nothing happens without God's permission.

I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind by saying "without God's permission." You might have in mind that God has some design or desire that the thing which He gives permission to happen should occur. I would put it simply that nothing happens which God does not allow to happen, which is obvious, since God is omnipotent.

Quote:

How does one "agree" with questions? I wasn't "indignant," but "frustrated." I'm sorry if I came across as "indignant."

You still haven't answer the questions I asked. Do you have any intention of doing so? (This is me being frustrated, not indignant).

Here are the questions you asked:

Quote:

1. Did Satan or sinners pass the boundaries established by God?
2. Did they do something prohibited by God?
3. Or, did God allow them to die in the way they did, that is, He did not intervene because it was within His established limits?

Aren't the answers to these questions (no, no, and yes) obvious? Is there any possible alternative? If so, how so?

Regarding the final portion, this seems like the same thing. Surely you understand that God is omnipotent, and nothing can happen that He does not allow. This seems to be your only point. I don't see why you feel this is a point worth making, or how it helps you to understand my position as to how or why people suffer and die. Am I missing something here? Do you have something else in mind than simply the fact that God is omnipotent and nothing can happen that God does not allow?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 02/09/09 04:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

I think you are getting close to where we are having problems of understanding each other. Would you be saying that Ellen White, in the above quote, does not mean it to apply in all situations?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/09/09 09:04 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

M: Kland, the following quote does not explain all the different ways and methods God has employed over the years to punish sinners.

"God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown."

K: I think you are getting close to where we are having problems of understanding each other. Would you be saying that Ellen White, in the above quote, does not mean it to apply in all situations?

I couldn't help noticing that you left out an important part of my original post. Here it is again for your convenience:

Originally Posted By: MM

I hope this answers your question. If not, please explain what you're looking for. Thank you.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/09/09 10:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

T: So if you ask the question, "Where did Jesus do such and such during His earthly mission which we see God doing in the OT" and can't find Him doing such, rather than reaching the conclusion that Jesus Christ's revelation of God is lacking, a better conclusion would be that our understanding of what God was doing in the OT is what's lacking.

M: Yes, I agree with you that Jesus never commanded or commissioned people to kill sinners. Based on this insight are you telling me God did not command Moses to kill sinners? If so, do you think the following passages were mistranslated:

Leviticus
24:23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Numbers
15:36 And all the congregation brought him {the Sabbath-breaker} without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

T: I'm not sure that "mistranslated" would be the best way of putting it. "Misunderstood" I think is a better way of putting it. Before Christ came, God was greatly misunderstood. The following explains the principle I have in mind:

“The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 22)

I don’t see how this passage from DA 22 explains why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Who “misunderstood” God’s command to kill those two guys? Please explain why the Bible says God “commanded” Moses to kill them. And, please explain why God commanded Moses to kill them. Thank you. BTW, I understand that your humane hunter story explains that God ran the risk of being misunderstood when He commanded Moses to kill sinners, but what your story doesn’t explain is why God commanded Moses to kill sinners.

Quote:

M: "How could anything happen which God did not permit?" Is your answer to this question the same as mine, namely, nothing happens without God's permission.

T: I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind by saying "without God's permission." You might have in mind that God has some design or desire that the thing which He gives permission to happen should occur. I would put it simply that nothing happens which God does not allow to happen, which is obvious, since God is omnipotent.

I agree that God is omnipotent and that the only things that happen are things He allows. IOW, neither evil angels nor evil men can do something to anyone or anything that exceeds what God is willing to allow. The question is – Why does God allow evil angels and evil men to do some evil things but not other evil things? And, how does He prevent them from exceeding His established limits and boundaries without violating their freedoms? What criteria does He use to establish His limits and boundaries?

Quote:

M: I've recreated the entire volley relating to our comments and questions regarding this point. I asked 3 questions to which you asked 5 additional questions. When I attempted to find common ground you became indignant and made it clear you didn't agree with any of the questions I posed.

T: How does one "agree" with questions? I wasn't "indignant," but "frustrated." I'm sorry if I came across as "indignant." You still haven't answer the questions I asked. Do you have any intention of doing so? (This is me being frustrated, not indignant).

Yes, I will answer your questions. But please do me a favor and reword them after you answer my original questions. Thank you.

Quote:

T: Here are the questions you asked [which were asked in relation to how and why Peter, Paul, and John died}:

1. Did Satan or sinners pass the boundaries established by God?
2. Did they do something prohibited by God?
3. Or, did God allow them to die in the way they did, that is, He did not intervene because it was within His established limits?

Aren't the answers to these questions (no, no, and yes) obvious? Is there any possible alternative? If so, how so?

Thank you for answering my questions.

Quote:

M: You wrote, "'Did Satan or sinners pass the boundaries established by God?' Surely you know this is impossible, don't you?" You seem to implying that you believe it is impossible for Satan and sinners to pass the boundaries established by God. Is this what you believe? If so, then I'm glad we agree nothing happens on this planet without God's permission, that no one can pass the limits set up by God.

T: Regarding the final portion, this seems like the same thing. Surely you understand that God is omnipotent, and nothing can happen that He does not allow. This seems to be your only point. I don't see why you feel this is a point worth making, or how it helps you to understand my position as to how or why people suffer and die. Am I missing something here? Do you have something else in mind than simply the fact that God is omnipotent and nothing can happen that God does not allow?

I realize you find this hard to believe but I wasn’t 100% certain what you believe about it. I didn’t want you to rebuke me for assuming something. Hopefully you can appreciate me taking the safer path. Now I know what you believe, namely, God is omnipotent and nothing happens that He does not allow. I agree.

Now that I know what you believe about this aspect of the issue I would like to know what you believe in relation to the questions I asked above: Why does God allow evil angels and evil men to do some evil things but not other evil things? And, how does He prevent them from exceeding His established limits and boundaries without violating their freedoms? What criteria does He use to establish His limits and boundaries?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/10/09 12:05 AM

Quote:

Who “misunderstood” God’s command to kill those two guys? Please explain why the Bible says God “commanded” Moses to kill them. And, please explain why God commanded Moses to kill them. Thank you.

MM, it looks like your missing my point. I'd suggest rereading the post. I didn't offer an explanation as to the incident, but was discussing the principle involved of considering Christ as a complete revelation of God as opposed to one revelation among many.

Quote:

BTW, I understand that your humane hunter story explains that God ran the risk of being misunderstood when He commanded Moses to kill sinners, but what your story doesn’t explain is why God commanded Moses to kill sinners.

This is what I think you're misunderstanding. You agree that Christ never commanded anyone to kill during His earthly mission, while He was supposed to be fully revealing God's character. Your view seems to be that Christ's revelation was not complete, that there were certain things about God that were left out, and as proof of this you cite things from the OT. I'm suggesting an alternative explanation is that the events of the OT are being misunderstood, and in reality God in the OT did not act differently than Christ did during His earthly mission, but instead what has happened is that God's actions in the OT have been misunderstood.

Quote:

These are very deep questions. If you wish to discuss these, I'd suggest a new thread. I don't know of any quick answers to these.

Quote:

Here are the questions I've been asking, still unanswered:

Quote:

You've asked me to reword these, but I don't see why this should be requested, as these seem to be very, very clear. For example, the question "How could anything happen which God did not permit?" seems to be as well phrased as possible. I don't know how I could improve it.

Regarding the questions you're asking, they look the same as what you asked above, which I would answer the same way, which is that these are deep questions, meriting their own thread IMO, and not questions that can be simply answered (but certainly worth exploring).

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Covenants - 02/10/09 03:15 AM

Quote:

What about Christ's teachings about the hell of fire, and His statement that we should not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, but should rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/10/09 04:16 AM

Here is the immediate context:

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. {GC 36.1} END QUOTE

God is not an executioner in the following sense:

Erelong sentence of condemnation was passed upon him. He was led out to the same spot upon which Huss had yielded up his life. He went singing on his way, his countenance lighted up with joy and peace. His gaze was fixed upon Christ, and to him death had lost its terrors. When the executioner, about to kindle the pile, stepped behind him, the martyr exclaimed: "Come forward boldly; apply the fire before my face. Had I been afraid, I should not be here." {GC 114.8} END QUOTE

Instead, God executes justice and judgment in the following manner:

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. 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}

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. "The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act." Isaiah 28:21. 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; but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Ezekiel 33:11. The Lord is "merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, . . . forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." Exodus 34:6, 7. 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 have become hardened in sin. "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. 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. {PP 628.1}

Quote:

K: As I have said before in a general aspect, though I must admit I did not say it in this specific instance, so I will specifically say it here for your benefit. In your quote, I can say "punishment" means different than what you think, same as destroy and what God is or is not directly doing just as Tom and I have explained numerous times which you refuse to accept as being explained. Now, you may not agree, but I am saying it.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Quote:

K: In like manner, would you say when one comes across a most difficult statement such as, "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression", would you mean to say it means God b]does[/b] stand as executioner, that not standing as executioner really means He does stand as executioner?

No.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/11/09 07:40 AM

Quote:

M: Or, did God allow them to die in the way they did, that is, He did not intervene because it was within His established limits?

T: How could anything happen which God did not permit?

1. Have Satan or sinners ever passed the boundaries established by God which regulate what they can and cannot do to other people? It would be possible if God permitted it, which I do not believe He ever has.
2. Same answer.
3. It can’t because He wouldn’t allow it.

I asked how could anything happen which God did not permit. You're answering it could happen if God permitted it. But in this case, my question isn't being answered because my question is how could anything happen which God did not permit. Saying that something could happen which God did not permit if He permitted it is self-contradictory.

Quote:

What do these insights tell us about God? I believe they help us understand that God is in control, that nothing happens by accident, that everything is carefully orchestrated by God.

I'm not sure what you're meaning to say here. First of all, it's clear that many things happen which are contrary to God's will. We know this is true for many reasons, but just to mention one, Jesus instructed us to pray "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." If God's will were being done here, we wouldn't need to pray this prayer.

Secondly to say that everything is carefully orchestrated by God can give the impression that God is behind all the evil things which happens, that the evil things themselves are due to God's own actions. Is this what you were meaning to say?

Quote:

Evil angels and evil men are free to choose as they please, but God actively ensures that the outcome of their choices do not in any way derail His goals and purposes for the GC.

God does not wish for any to perish, but there are people who perish, so His goals can be derailed, at least on an individual basis. God cannot force people to choose His principles.

Quote:

He intervenes in ways that prevent the GC from playing out unfairly for the saints or ending unfavorably for Him.

God is not self-centered. He does not act in accordance with self interest, and your statement that God intervenes in ways to prevent an ending unfavorable for Himself may imply. God does no such thing. God intervenes so things do not end unfairly unfavorably for His creatures as a whole.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/11/09 09:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Oops! I misread the question. Sorry. I agree that the only things that happened in fact are things God permitted. For example, Job suffered outrageous losses because God permitted it. But, there are times when God Himself causes things to happen. In such cases it is not a matter of God permitting others to do it; instead, God Himself causes it to happen. For example, God employed the forces of nature to cause a worldwide Flood to punish full-cup sinners.

Quote:

M: What do these insights tell us about God? I believe they help us understand that God is in control, that nothing happens by accident, that everything is carefully orchestrated by God.

T: I'm not sure what you're meaning to say here. First of all, it's clear that many things happen which are contrary to God's will. We know this is true for many reasons, but just to mention one, Jesus instructed us to pray "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." If God's will were being done here, we wouldn't need to pray this prayer.

Secondly to say that everything is carefully orchestrated by God can give the impression that God is behind all the evil things which happens, that the evil things themselves are due to God's own actions. Is this what you were meaning to say?

Time and circumstances force God to cause and permit things to happen that, were it not for sin and the GC, He would not cause or permit to happen. Desperate times require desperate measures. God’s options were limited. He could have allowed A&E to die in the day they sinned, in which case the human race would have ended with their death. If God had opted for this option, the biblical record of Him having to cause and permit bad things to happen would not exist. We wouldn’t be sitting here asking, Why does God cause or permit bad things to happen?

God, however, opted to grant mankind a probationary period to embrace Jesus as their Savior and to experience righteousness by faith. In so doing the GC grew to include mankind. Sin, evil, suffering, and death became integral parts of life on earth. Under the circumstances God is forced to cause and permit bad things to happen. But He is in control. He grants men and angels the right to choose as they please, but He reserves the right to manage the outcome of their choices. In this way God orchestrates the outcome of the GC. He leaves nothing to chance or choice. It is in this sense that nothing happens contrary to God’s will.

Quote:

M: Evil angels and evil men are free to choose as they please, but God actively ensures that the outcome of their choices do not in any way derail His goals and purposes for the GC.

T: God does not wish for any to perish, but there are people who perish, so His goals can be derailed, at least on an individual basis. God cannot force people to choose His principles.

Let’s back it up to the beginning. Was it God’s will for men and angels to sin and die? No, of course not! But, again, His options were limited, namely, to create men and angels and deal with the GC, or not to create them and not have to deal with the GC. God knew in advance how things would play out and yet He chose to create men and angels anyhow. Why? “. . . for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness.” {AG 129.2} I realize you disagree with this view of God’s foreknowledge, but it should help you understand my point of view here. It is in this sense that sinners cannot derail God’s plan to win the GC.

Quote:

M: He intervenes in ways that prevent the GC from playing out unfairly for the saints or ending unfavorably for Him.

T: God is not self-centered. He does not act in accordance with self interest, and your statement that God intervenes in ways to prevent an ending unfavorable for Himself may imply. God does no such thing. God intervenes so things do not end unfairly unfavorably for His creatures as a whole.

Aren’t they one and the same? That is, if it’s good for God isn’t it also good for FMAs?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/11/09 09:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Quote:

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/12/09 12:27 AM

Quote:

T:I asked how could anything happen which God did not permit. You're answering it could happen if God permitted it. But in this case, my question isn't being answered because my question is how could anything happen which God did not permit. Saying that something could happen which God did not permit if He permitted it is self-contradictory.

M:Oops! I misread the question. Sorry. I agree that the only things that happened in fact are things God permitted. For example, Job suffered outrageous losses because God permitted it. But, there are times when God Himself causes things to happen. In such cases it is not a matter of God permitting others to do it; instead, God Himself causes it to happen. For example, God employed the forces of nature to cause a worldwide Flood to punish full-cup sinners.

The question was yours. That is, you asked:

Quote:

M: Or, did God allow them to die in the way they did, that is, He did not intervene because it was within His established limits?

to which I asked:

Quote:

T: How could anything happen which God did not permit?

Similarly you asked:

Quote:

M: Did Satan or sinners pass the boundaries established by God? Did they do something prohibited by God?

To which I asked:

Quote:

T: What do you mean? How would that be possible?

So you asked a number of questions which would only be possible if someone were to do something which God did not allow to happen, which seems impossible on the face of it, prompting me to ask you why you were asking such questions.

Quote:

Under the circumstances God is forced to cause and permit bad things to happen.

I agree with idea that God is forced to permit bad things to happen, but not with the idea that He is forced to cause bad things to happen.

Quote:

But He is in control. He grants men and angels the right to choose as they please, but He reserves the right to manage the outcome of their choices.

I don't like the way this is phrased. It sounds to me like God is being manipulative. I wouldn't say that He reserves the right to manage the outcome of choices, but simply that God is good, and being good He responds to evil with goodness. He does just as Paul wrote in Romans 12; He overcomes evil with good.

Quote:

In this way God orchestrates the outcome of the GC. He leaves nothing to chance or choice. It is in this sense that nothing happens contrary to God’s will.

I don't see the sense in this. He does leave things to choice. He leaves things to the choice of His creatures. Every knee will bow, every tongue confess. God will abide by the decisions which His creatures have made. For example, the wicked will voluntarily choose to be excluded from heaven. Even in the judgment God is not imposing His will.

Quote:

If you state things the way you did, that God intervenes in ways that prevent the GC from playing out unfairly for the saints or ending unfavorably for Him, this certainly smacks of self-interest.

Regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, I don't have anything to add to what we've discussed previously. The point I've been trying to make is that if there is a discrepancy between something we think that happened in the OT and what Jesus Christ revealed of God during His earthly mission, we should take the position that what Jesus Christ revealed is accurate, full, and complete, and that our idea of what happened in the OT which we perceive as being contradictory is what should be adjusted. This is as opposed to reaching the conclusion that Jesus Christ did not reveal all that God can know of God (but did something more limited, for example, revealing only what certain individuals could comprehend at the time).

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 02/12/09 05:25 PM

MM, do you realize when you start making extraneous quotes, you cause me to feel that you really don't want to talk about the quote under question and are using tactics of distraction and filling page after page of unrelated nauseam in an attempt to change the topic, distract, overwhelm, hide, or otherwise avoid that which is uncomfortable to you or otherwise contradicts your views? When you say "Listen:", that means to skip over it as you will spout verse without explanation of how it fits or applies or explains the question asked. Now, I may be wrong, but that is what you are getting across to me. Evolutionists have used the same tactics. I feel one on the "Dreams" thread is doing the same. This is what you are causing me to feel towards you.

Want support for my feelings?

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Quote:

K: In like manner, would you say when one comes across a most difficult statement such as, "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression", would you mean to say it means God does stand as executioner, that not standing as executioner really means He does stand as executioner?

No.

-versus-

Quote:

I also no notice the quote says God does not stand as executioner, while you are saying it doesn't explain all the ways and methods of punishing sinners. Do you see a disconnect here?
I get the feeling that the quote on your screen must be different from the one on mine.

Does God stand towards the sinner as an executioner or doesn't He? Or should we insert the words, some of the time, most of the time, usually, rarely?

Regarding my reference to specific instance and meaning of punishment:

Quote:

I don't understand what you're saying here.

No, I don't suppose you do since you have avoided it (distracted, hid, overwhelmed, dismissed) in the past.
Such as #107197 of 1/6/9. Perhaps I can figure out a clearer way of stating it in the future.

Ok....

Quote:

"God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown."

If God doesn't stand as executioner and leaves them to themselves, could you explain how that fits in with:

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Kland, the following quote does not explain all the different ways and methods God has employed over the years to punish sinners.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/13/09 04:51 AM

Quote:

T:Regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, I don't have anything to add to what we've discussed previously. The point I've been trying to make is that if there is a discrepancy between something we think that happened in the OT and what Jesus Christ revealed of God during His earthly mission, we should take the position that what Jesus Christ revealed is accurate, full, and complete, and that our idea of what happened in the OT which we perceive as being contradictory is what should be adjusted. This is as opposed to reaching the conclusion that Jesus Christ did not reveal all that God can know of God (but did something more limited, for example, revealing only what certain individuals could comprehend at the time).

M:Tom, please answer the questions I posted above. Your unwillingness to explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer leads me to suspect you believe He didn't.

Please note the underlined sentence. Also the rest of the post, which makes the point I've been wishing to make. You can choose to agree or disagree with the point, but I think this is about as far as we can go on this subject for the time being.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/13/09 11:35 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

"God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown."

If God doesn't stand as executioner and leaves them to themselves, could you explain how that fits in with: "Kland, the following quote does not explain all the different ways and methods God has employed over the years to punish sinners.

It doesn't.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/13/09 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Given everything you've ever posted about it, I am forced to conclude, therefore, you do *not* believe God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. If this isn't what you believe, then please tell me now, otherwise, you leave me with no other option. Thank you.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/14/09 01:41 AM

Quote:

It doesn't matter what I believe about this. The point I've been trying to make is that if there is a discrepancy between something we think that happened in the OT and what Jesus Christ revealed of God during His earthly mission, we should take the position that what Jesus Christ revealed is accurate, full, and complete, and that our idea of what happened in the OT which we perceive as being contradictory is what should be adjusted.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/14/09 01:45 AM

Quote:

"God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown."

K:If God doesn't stand as executioner and leaves them to themselves, could you explain how that fits in with: "Kland, the following quote does not explain all the different ways and methods God has employed over the years to punish sinners.

M:It doesn't.

As one who frequently complains about he inadequacy of completed answers, this is hardly an explanation that could be considered in any sense an explanation.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/15/09 09:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

It doesn't matter what I believe about this.

Does this mean you agree with my conclusion regarding your view? It is, after all, in harmony with your belief God didn't do anything in the OT that contradicts what Jesus did in the NT. It is clear, therefore, that you believe God did not command Moses to kill sinners. You believe the following passages must be interpreted to mean God did not command Moses to kill sinners:

Numbers
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Leviticus
24:23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.

PS - I haven't found Kland's comments or questions interesting or inviting.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 02/16/09 05:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: kland

It doesn't.

So what should we conclude here?

Quote:

PS - I haven't found Kland's comments or questions interesting or inviting.

But inviting enough to say, "Kland, the following quote does not explain all the different ways and methods God has employed over the years to punish sinners."

Interesting. Did you just justify my previously mentioned feelings?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/16/09 06:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Kland

So what should we conclude here?

That the quote you posted says "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown."

Quote:

Did you just justify my previously mentioned feelings?

No.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/16/09 07:30 PM

Quote:

T:It doesn't matter what I believe about this.

M:Does this mean you agree with my conclusion regarding your view?

No.

Quote:

It is, after all, in harmony with your belief God didn't do anything in the OT that contradicts what Jesus did in the NT. It is clear, therefore, that you believe God did not command Moses to kill sinners. You believe the following passages must be interpreted to mean God did not command Moses to kill sinners:

Numbers
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Leviticus
24:23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.

I think the hunter/father story is a better explanation of how I see this incident.

Quote:

PS - I haven't found Kland's comments or questions interesting or inviting.

I think he has been frustrated by your responses, which explains his comments. I think his questions are very interesting. I hope you two can get a dialog going.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 02/17/09 06:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

I think he has been frustrated by your responses, which explains his comments.

I think that's an understatement!

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: Kland

Originally Posted By: Tom

But your story does not portray the father commanding his son to hunt and kill animals like God commanded Moses to kill sinners. Do you agree this aspect is missing in your story? Also, what do you mean by - "God's choice was to work with the Israelites as they were"? What "were" they? And, how did it impact the way God "worked" with them (as opposed to how He would have worked with them if they had not been "as they were")?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/19/09 11:33 PM

In regards to an aspect missing from the story, no, I don't think so. I think you're trying to have the story address something it wasn't meant to. The point of the story is how one could misunderstand the father without knowing all of the circumstances involved, and similarly with God. It's not a story about hunting or killing; it's a story about misunderstanding.

Regarding God's working with them as they were, and what they were, they were unbelieving. God would have led them straight to Zion, and the Messiah would have come right away, had they had faith, instead of their being centuries of the history which we see, culminating in their rejecting their King.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 02/20/09 04:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

But your story does not portray the father commanding his son to hunt and kill animals like God commanded Moses to kill sinners.

You are emphasizing a direct command. I agree with Tom that the story's purpose does not address "commanding", but how appearances can be completely misunderstood.

Did God "command" the Israelites to do other things? Did they always do them? Were they required to kill sinners, that is, could they have chosen to not follow that command? Did Moses kill anyone?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/20/09 07:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Originally Posted By: Tom

1. Did Jesus command others to kill?
2. Or to use violence at all?
3. Did Jesus Christ use force to get His way?
4. How did He treat others in general?
5. Was He cruel?
6. Did He command fire to come down from heaven to destroy His enemies?
7. How did He respond when this was suggested?

Tom, please answer the questions above. Thank you.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/24/09 09:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Quote:

Nowhere do I see Jesus renegotiating the covenant in order to work with the Jews while He was here.

Why are you saying this?

To accommodate the Jews in the OT God was forced to negotiate a new covenant. Did Jesus have to do something similar while here?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 02/25/09 12:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: kland

Good questions. Thank you.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes (God required them to obey His commands).
4. Yes (But it is a sin to disobey God's commands).
5. Yes.

So, based upon 4, would you say they were already in a state of sinning, when God commanded Moses to kill anyone? What implications would that have?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/25/09 12:43 AM

Quote:

I was suggesting looking at Jesus Christ's life with questions like these in mind to form a model. I'm not going to go through each one, but to consider one or two, we can see in regards to how Jesus treated people that He was generous, considerate, patient, kind, and not in the least cruel. Some incidents which enlighten us on how He treated others are the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, Simon at his party, and washing His disciples' feet. Of course, there are tons more, but these are some which readily come to my mind which illuminate His character.

Regarding Christ's use of force, I can only think of two incidents which could even be misconstrued as His using force to get His way, which would be the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig tree. Setting these incidents aside for the moment, we see in Christ a totally non-violent person, even anti-violent, both in His actions and His teaching. Considering these two often misunderstood incidents, one was an acted parable, and in the other it was not force which drove those who left out of the temple, but a guilty conscience as divinity flashed through humanity, which was a matter of character, not power.

Quote:

Nowhere do I see Jesus renegotiating the covenant in order to work with the Jews while He was here.

Why are you saying this?

To accommodate the Jews in the OT God was forced to negotiate a new covenant. Did Jesus have to do something similar while here?

The new covenant already existed. This is the covenant which God made to Abraham, which God offered to the Jews, but in unbelief they refused. Nobody has been saved except under this covenant.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/26/09 10:37 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: kland

Good questions. Thank you.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes (God required them to obey His commands).
4. Yes (But it is a sin to disobey God's commands).
5. Yes.

So, based upon 4, would you say they were already in a state of sinning, when God commanded Moses to kill anyone? What implications would that have?

No, I don't think they were in a state of sinning or in a sinful mood when they asked Moses to inquire of God as to the best way to deal with the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. They were not hungry for blood as evidenced by the fact they wanted to do the right thing according to God's will.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/26/09 10:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

T:1. Did Jesus command others to kill?
2. Or to use violence at all?
3. Did Jesus Christ use force to get His way?
4. How did He treat others in general?
5. Was He cruel?
6. Did He command fire to come down from heaven to destroy His enemies?
7. How did He respond when this was suggested?

M:Tom, please answer the questions above. Thank you.

T: I was suggesting looking at Jesus Christ's life with questions like these in mind to form a model. I'm not going to go through each one, but to consider one or two, we can see in regards to how Jesus treated people that He was generous, considerate, patient, kind, and not in the least cruel. Some incidents which enlighten us on how He treated others are the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, Simon at his party, and washing His disciples' feet. Of course, there are tons more, but these are some which readily come to my mind which illuminate His character.

Is there any evidence of God acting this way in the OT? For example, was God demonstrating these attributes of character when He commanded Moses to kill sinners? If not, is it possible Jesus didn't demonstrate whatever traits were at work when God did such things?

Originally Posted By: Tom

Regarding Christ's use of force, I can only think of two incidents which could even be misconstrued as His using force to get His way, which would be the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig tree. Setting these incidents aside for the moment, we see in Christ a totally non-violent person, even anti-violent, both in His actions and His teaching. Considering these two often misunderstood incidents, one was an acted parable, and in the other it was not force which drove those who left out of the temple, but a guilty conscience as divinity flashed through humanity, which was a matter of character, not power.

I agree.

Quote:

M: Nowhere do I see Jesus renegotiating the covenant in order to work with the Jews while He was here.

T: Why are you saying this?

M: To accommodate the Jews in the OT God was forced to negotiate a new covenant. Did Jesus have to do something similar while here?

T: The new covenant already existed. This is the covenant which God made to Abraham, which God offered to the Jews, but in unbelief they refused. Nobody has been saved except under this covenant.

I'll rephrase my question. Did Jesus demonstrate offering the Jews the NC and then resorting to the OC because they failed to comply with the conditions of the NC? Initially you brought this up to explain why God commanded Moses to kill sinners. I'm still trying to understand how it helps.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/27/09 12:57 AM

Quote:

T: I was suggesting looking at Jesus Christ's life with questions like these in mind to form a model. I'm not going to go through each one, but to consider one or two, we can see in regards to how Jesus treated people that He was generous, considerate, patient, kind, and not in the least cruel. Some incidents which enlighten us on how He treated others are the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, Simon at his party, and washing His disciples' feet. Of course, there are tons more, but these are some which readily come to my mind which illuminate His character.

M:Is there any evidence of God acting this way in the OT? For example, was God demonstrating these attributes of character when He commanded Moses to kill sinners? If not, is it possible Jesus didn't demonstrate whatever traits were at work when God did such things?

I've been suggesting formulating a model of God from Jesus Christ first, *then* looking at the OT. This can't be done by considering the OT first.

Glad you agree on the comments regarding Jesus Christ and force.

Quote:

This isn't what happened. What happened is that the Jews were presented the NC, and they responded in unbelief, which is the essence of the OC. This principle was often demonstrated in the life of Christ, the greatest example of this being their putting Christ to death.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/27/09 06:02 AM

1. Did God command Moses to kill sinners? Yes or no, please.
2. Was the Law of Moses part of the NC?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 02/27/09 04:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

1. Did God command Moses to kill sinners? Yes or no, please.

...Please answer questions with a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

Do you suppose we are we in court?

Quote:

2. Was the Law of Moses part of the NC?

Do you mean the New new covenant or the new old or the original-old-new covenant. Did you catch that Tom may not be at the same new-old, old-new, new-new, or old-old as what appears to me you are indicating?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/27/09 05:47 PM

1.According to your understanding of things, no.

2.Had the people believed the NC, the law of Moses would not have been given to them, as it would not have been necessary. As Paul explained, it was added because of transgression. Actually that was referring specifically to the speaking of the moral law, but the same principle applies to the law of Moses. It was only necessary because of unbelief.

Because of their unbelief, the people undertook to promise of themselves to do that which the Lord had promised them, which is how the OC came into being. In order to make it evident that the people did not have the righteousness which the law required, God gave them the law of Moses. It's purpose was that they would see their sinfulness, and flee to Christ. It also contained teachings of Christ's sacrifice.

The NC is God's promise to forgive the sins of the people, and to write the law in their heart.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/27/09 09:12 PM

1. Please describe my understanding of it, and then describe yours.

2. Do any of the laws in the Law of Moses contradict the Law of God?

PS - I agree with you that minutely spelling things out in the Law of Moses would not have been necessary had the Jews faithfully obeyed the Law of God.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 02/27/09 09:16 PM

Kland, Tom can speak for himself. I have no knowledge of the different titles you used to describe the covenant. I am only aware of the EC, NC, and OC. I am also aware of covenant terms like Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/27/09 09:40 PM

Quote:

M:1. Please describe my understanding of it, and then describe yours.

You see God as giving an explicit order stemming from and expressing His will. I see what happened more along the lines of the father/hunter analogy, that God was constrained by circumstances to give counsel that's been misinterpreted as His expressing His will on an issue.

Quote:

2. Do any of the laws in the Law of Moses contradict the Law of God?

If you're asking if God permitting things contrary to His will, He did, such as divorce. This is the point I've been making. I've not made the point that the law of Moses contradicts the law of God. Given that the law of Moses proceeded from God, that would be a rather odd assertion.

Quote:

PS - I agree with you that minutely spelling things out in the Law of Moses would not have been necessary had the Jews faithfully obeyed the Law of God.

Ok.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 02/27/09 09:42 PM

Quote:

I welcome Kland's comments. He seems to be seeing these issues similarly to how I do. If he says something I disagree with, I'll speak up. I think it helps to get another perspective involved. For example, I may have trouble seeing what it is you're addressing, whereas Kland catches it, so he can help out by responding to a question or point you've made that I missed.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 02/28/09 12:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Either you are being contrary, or this is an example of "specifics" and not grasping my general idea.

It just appeared to me that you two were talking about two different things. If Tom is using one idea for the New covenant, and you are using another, how productive would that be? Wouldn't it be much better to ensure that you are talking about the same things than seeing several posts before that conclusion is reached?

Quote:

2. Do any of the laws in the Law of Moses contradict the Law of God?

Did any of the instruction contradict the father's ideal in the Father/hunter story?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/01/09 08:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

1. Please describe my understanding of it, and then describe yours.

T: You see God as giving an explicit order stemming from and expressing His will. I see what happened more along the lines of the father/hunter analogy, that God was constrained by circumstances to give counsel that's been misinterpreted as His expressing His will on an issue.

True, I believe God was "constrained by circumstances" to command Moses to kill those two guys. Of course God is not willing that any should perish, but under the circumstances it was His for them to be stoned to death. Whereas, I hear you saying God did not "command" Moses to kill them; instead, He "counseled" him to do it, and that people like me have misunderstood His counsel to mean it was His will for them to be stoned to death. The word "counsel" makes it sound like it was optional, that Moses could have decided against killing them. Is this what you mean?

Quote:

2. Do any of the laws in the Law of Moses contradict the Law of God?

T: If you're asking if God permitting things contrary to His will, He did, such as divorce. This is the point I've been making. I've not made the point that the law of Moses contradicts the law of God. Given that the law of Moses proceeded from God, that would be a rather odd assertion.

I hear you saying permitting the Jews to practice things contrary to His will are, nevertheless, in harmony with His law. If so, it seems like a rather odd assertion.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/01/09 09:01 PM

Regarding Moses, I like the way I put it, so I'll leave it like that.

Regarding your comment about the Jews being permitted to do things contrary to God's will, here is an example:

Quote:

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.(Matt. 19:8)

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/01/09 09:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Quote:

Then please explain to me what he meant by:

Do you mean the New new covenant or the new old or the original-old-new covenant. Did you catch that Tom may not be at the same new-old, old-new, new-new, or old-old as what appears to me you are indicating?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/01/09 09:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Regarding Moses, I like the way I put it, so I'll leave it like that.

Then I'll never know what you believe about why God "commanded" Moses to kill sinners. Which, no doubt, will hinder me from ever fully understanding your view of God.

Originally Posted By: Tom

Regarding your comment about the Jews being permitted to do things contrary to God's will, here is an example: Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.(Matt. 19:8)

My question implies this point and then goes on to ask, Did the law of Moses permit the Jews to violate the will of God and the law of God?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/01/09 09:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Kland

2. Do any of the laws in the Law of Moses contradict the Law of God?

Did any of the instruction contradict the father's ideal in the Father/hunter story?

Yes. Do you think any of it violated any laws?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/02/09 12:38 AM

Quote:

He explained his meaning here:

Quote:

It just appeared to me that you two were talking about two different things. If Tom is using one idea for the New covenant, and you are using another, how productive would that be? Wouldn't it be much better to ensure that you are talking about the same things than seeing several posts before that conclusion is reached?

Quote:

T:Regarding Moses, I like the way I put it, so I'll leave it like that.

[quote]M:Then I'll never know what you believe about why God "commanded" Moses to kill sinners. Which, no doubt, will hinder me from ever fully understanding your view of God.

I've been saying over and over again that the approach I think should be taken is to form a Model of God's character based on studying Jesus Christ, and only *then* go back and look at the OT. So I wouldn't say you'll never know what I believe about why God "commanded" Moses to kill sinners, unless you refuse to do what I've suggested.

Quote:

T:Regarding your comment about the Jews being permitted to do things contrary to God's will, here is an example: Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.(Matt. 19:8)

M:My question implies this point and then goes on to ask, Did the law of Moses permit the Jews to violate the will of God and the law of God?

I take it from your question that you believe it's possible to do things contrary to God's will without breaking the law, is that right? Regarding the specific question of divorce, Jesus Christ explained that divorce not granted on the legitimate grounds He explained leads to adultery. Do you agree with this?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 03/02/09 05:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: Kland

2. Do any of the laws in the Law of Moses contradict the Law of God?

Did any of the instruction contradict the father's ideal in the Father/hunter story?

Yes. Do you think any of it violated any laws?

I find his instruction contradicts the father's ideal. The father's ideal was for his son not to hunt. The son would not listen to his father's will. Rather than disowning his son, punishing his son, or refusing to allow his son to make a free choice, the father met the son up to what the son was willing to allow. The father then showed the son the best, safest, and most humane way to use the gun.

Using the gun in the best, safest, and most human way did not contradict the father's ideal after the son made the choice to use the gun. It did contradict the father's ideal of not using the gun at all. At the same time, it was the father's ideal for his son to make freewill choices, and having made them, the father had to work with where his son was. The son did not have to follow the father's will in using the gun any more than he had to follow it in not hunting. But, the son was willing to follow the father's will in how to hunt. This will result in less harm, suffering, and penalty than if the son refuses on even this point.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 03/02/09 05:20 PM

MM, why shouldn't Jesus' life, which was intended to represent Jesus of the Old Testament, be the basis upon which to understand the Old Testament?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/02/09 06:56 PM

I liked your explanation on the father/hunter, kland. Especially this I found helpful:

Quote:

Using the gun in the best, safest, and most humane way did not contradict the father's ideal after the son made the choice to use the gun. It did contradict the father's ideal of not using the gun at all.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/02/09 08:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: Then please explain to me what he meant by:

T: Do you mean the New new covenant or the new old or the original-old-new covenant. Did you catch that Tom may not be at the same new-old, old-new, new-new, or old-old as what appears to me you are indicating?

He explained his meaning here: It just appeared to me that you two were talking about two different things. If Tom is using one idea for the New covenant, and you are using another, how productive would that be? Wouldn't it be much better to ensure that you are talking about the same things than seeing several posts before that conclusion is reached?

In what way are you and I viewing the NC and the OC differently?

Quote:

T:Regarding Moses, I like the way I put it, so I'll leave it like that.

M:Then I'll never know what you believe about why God "commanded" Moses to kill sinners. Which, no doubt, will hinder me from ever fully understanding your view of God.

T: I've been saying over and over again that the approach I think should be taken is to form a Model of God's character based on studying Jesus Christ, and only *then* go back and look at the OT. So I wouldn't say you'll never know what I believe about why God "commanded" Moses to kill sinners, unless you refuse to do what I've suggested.

Do you trust me to arrive at the correct conclusion? If not, then please tell me plainly why God commanded Moses to kill sinners. You have never done this yet. You keep avoiding it. I don't understand why.

Quote:

Yes. Contrary to His *idea* will when He permits it.

Quote:

T: Regarding the specific question of divorce, Jesus Christ explained that divorce not granted on the legitimate grounds He explained leads to adultery. Do you agree with this?

Yes. On another note, do you agree God required capital punishment for specific crimes in the law of Moses?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/02/09 08:50 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

MM, why shouldn't Jesus' life, which was intended to represent Jesus of the Old Testament, be the basis upon which to understand the Old Testament?

I believe His life and teachings represent everything we need to know about God in the OT and NT. Do you?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/02/09 08:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Kland

I find his instruction contradicts the father's ideal.

Did it violate any laws to teach his son how to hunt humanely?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/02/09 08:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

I liked your explanation on the father/hunter, kland. Especially this I found helpful:

Quote:

How did it *not* contradict his ideal will to use the gun to hunt humanely?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/02/09 10:24 PM

What?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 03/03/09 05:09 PM

It seems to me he is asking how "using the gun in the best, safest, and most humane way" did *not* contradict his ideal will to use the gun to hunt humanely.

?!

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/03/09 05:46 PM

If this is the question, this is simply an application of the more general question of how God's permissive does not contradict His ideal will.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/03/09 10:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Kland

Using the gun in the best, safest, and most humane way did not contradict the father's ideal after the son made the choice to use the gun.

Are you referring to the father's original ideal will (i.e. not to hunt) or the father's subsequent ideal will (i.e. how to hunt humanely)? In any case, were any laws violated?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/03/09 11:01 PM

Tom, please address 109246.

Kland, please address 109248 and 109249.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/04/09 05:51 AM

Quote:

In what way are you and I viewing the NC and the OC differently?

I view the NC and OC along the lines of what Waggoner said:

Quote:

Ellen White said:

Quote:

Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds.-- Letter 30, 1890

Quote:

Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented. (9MR 328)

It seems to me you are doing precisely this, spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented.

To answer your question briefly, in the points where you differ from Waggoner's view, you and I differ.

T: Regarding the specific question of divorce, Jesus Christ explained that divorce not granted on the legitimate grounds He explained leads to adultery. Do you agree with this?

Quote:

Yes. On another note, do you agree God required capital punishment for specific crimes in the law of Moses?

In a sense.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/04/09 05:57 AM

Quote:

T: I've been saying over and over again that the approach I think should be taken is to form a Model of God's character based on studying Jesus Christ, and only *then* go back and look at the OT. So I wouldn't say you'll never know what I believe about why God "commanded" Moses to kill sinners, unless you refuse to do what I've suggested.

M:Do you trust me to arrive at the correct conclusion? If not, then please tell me plainly why God commanded Moses to kill sinners. You have never done this yet. You keep avoiding it. I don't understand why.

Yes to the first question, if you got about the task with integrity. Why not?

Quote:

T: I take it from your question that you believe it's possible to do things contrary to God's will without breaking the law, is that right?

M:Yes. Contrary to His *idea* will when He permits it.

I take it you mean "ideal." You're saying that one can do things contrary to God's ideal will without breaking the law? Isn't the law a transcript of God's character, and as such, an expression of His idea will? So how can one act contrary to God's idea will and not break the law?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 03/04/09 05:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: kland

MM, why shouldn't Jesus' life, which was intended to represent Jesus of the Old Testament, be the basis upon which to understand the Old Testament?

I believe His life and teachings represent everything we need to know about God in the OT and NT. Do you?

You just continually leave me with my mouth hanging open. That's why I did not address this. How does your statement even begin to fit with anything you have said before? Is this similar to the internal conflict of, God directly kills, maims, and destroys men, women, and children, but that demonstrates His love?

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain how if Jesus' life and teachings represent everything we need to know about God in the OT and NT, how you see Jesus in the Old Testament behaving different than that of the New.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/05/09 08:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Where do I differ from Waggoner and you?

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: On another note, do you agree God required capital punishment for specific crimes in the law of Moses?

T: In a sense.

Please elaborate.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/05/09 09:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M:Do you trust me to arrive at the correct conclusion? If not, then please tell me plainly why God commanded Moses to kill sinners. You have never done this yet. You keep avoiding it. I don't understand why.

T: Yes to the first question, if you got about the task with integrity. Why not?

Why not? Because you have given me nothing to work with. You keep insisting that the time isn't right for you to publicly state your position plainly. The only thing you have said is that God took the risk of being misunderstood as approving of capital punishment. But you haven't said why He commanded Moses to kill sinners.

Originally Posted By: Tom

You're saying that one can do things contrary to God's ideal will without breaking the law? Isn't the law a transcript of God's character, and as such, an expression of His idea will? So how can one act contrary to God's idea will and not break the law?

The tension between the ideal will of God and the permissive will of God is indeed baffling. His permissive will serves as a bridge to bring sinners back to His ideal will. However, in a world full of sin and death His ideal will is impossible, namely, for sin and death not to exist.

Similarly, the grace and goodness of God makes up for our obvious and insurmountable defects and deficiencies, which also serves as a bridge between His ideal and permissive will. No, I'm not saying we cannot stop sinning; instead, I'm saying we are so far from God's ideal will that His permissive will is necessary to balance things out.

Listen carefully. I'm not saying God permits us to sin. His permissive will does not allow us to sin. Therefore, whatever He permits His people to do that is contrary to His ideal will it in no way violates His law. For example, His permissive will allowed the Jews to have more than one wife but it in no way permitted them to sin, to break His law. The same is true of divorce, capital punishment, and having a king.

In the beginning God permitted incestuous marriages. But as the population increased God no longer permitted people to marry within their immediate family circle.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/05/09 09:19 PM

Originally Posted By: kland

K: MM, why shouldn't Jesus' life, which was intended to represent Jesus of the Old Testament, be the basis upon which to understand the Old Testament?

M: I believe His life and teachings represent everything we need to know about God in the OT and NT. Do you?

K: You just continually leave me with my mouth hanging open. That's why I did not address this. How does your statement even begin to fit with anything you have said before? Is this similar to the internal conflict of, God directly kills, maims, and destroys men, women, and children, but that demonstrates His love?

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain how if Jesus' life and teachings represent everything we need to know about God in the OT and NT, how you see Jesus in the Old Testament behaving different than that of the New.

I'm sorry your mouth is hanging open. Around here, Colorado, it is not safe to go around with your mouth wide open - what with all the cattle ranches you might end up with a mouth full of flies. Ha! I crack myself up sometimes.

I don't see Jesus addressing the problem of full-cup sinners any differently in the OT and NT. His life and teachings, while here in the flesh, reflect everything we need to know about God punishing and killing full-cup sinners in the OT. For example, Jesus taught:

Matthew
8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew
22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
22:14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen.

Matthew
24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
24:49 And shall begin to smite [his] fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and in an hour that he is not aware of,
24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strowed:
25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou hast [that is] thine.
25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strowed:
25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto him which hath ten talents.
25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
25:42 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/05/09 09:33 PM

Quote:

T:It seems to me you are doing precisely this, spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented. To answer your question briefly, in the points where you differ from Waggoner's view, you and I differ.

M:Where do I differ from Waggoner and you?

You're the best person to answer this. Look at the quote I provided, and see what you disagree with. I can give you another one if you'd like, that deals more with the COI.

Quote:

M: On another note, do you agree God required capital punishment for specific crimes in the law of Moses?

T: In a sense.

M:Please elaborate.

In the sense of the father/hunter analogy.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/05/09 09:42 PM

Quote:

T: I've been saying over and over again that the approach I think should be taken is to form a Model of God's character based on studying Jesus Christ, and only *then* go back and look at the OT. So I wouldn't say you'll never know what I believe about why God "commanded" Moses to kill sinners, unless you refuse to do what I've suggested.

M:Do you trust me to arrive at the correct conclusion? If not, then please tell me plainly why God commanded Moses to kill sinners. You have never done this yet. You keep avoiding it. I don't understand why.

T:Yes to the first question, if you got about the task with integrity. Why not?

M:Why not? Because you have given me nothing to work with.

Please note the underlined portion above. That's the task to go about. You don't need me for this.

Quote:

Which means what? (underlined portion)

Quote:

Listen carefully.

Ok. I've got my microphone going, headphones on.

Quote:

I'm not saying God permits us to sin. His permissive will does not allow us to sin.

What do you mean by this? You must mean it's not OK with Him if we sin. Clearly His permissive will allows us to sin in the sense that we can sin if we choose to do so.

Quote:

Therefore, whatever He permits His people to do that is contrary to His ideal will it in no way violates His law.[/qoute]

"Therefore" means some conclusion follows from some premise. What's the premise, and what's the conclusion?

[quote]For example, His permissive will allowed the Jews to have more than one wife but it in no way permitted them to sin, to break His law. The same is true of divorce, capital punishment, and having a king.

Meaning what? Does this mean something different than I would say? Here's what I would say. God did not want them to divorce. This has always been contrary to His ideal will (or law; they're synonymous). However, because of the hardness of their heart, He permitted it.

Quote:

In the beginning God permitted incestuous marriages. But as the population increased God no longer permitted people to marry within their immediate family circle.

This is a terrible analogy. Why? Because this has nothing to do with morality.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 03/06/09 05:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

I don't see Jesus addressing the problem of full-cup sinners any differently in the OT and NT. His life and teachings, while here in the flesh, reflect everything we need to know about God punishing and killing full-cup sinners in the OT.

I'm glad you cleared that up. For some reason I thought you thought Jesus acted differently in the OT than the NT.

Quote:

For example, Jesus taught:

Matthew
8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

What does that passage mean to you. Assuming that ekballo should not be translated as shut out, leave, or bring forth, whom is doing the casting, what is this outer darkness? How does it relate to what Jesus does or does not do in the OT and NT?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/07/09 01:56 AM

Originally Posted By: kland

M: I don't see Jesus addressing the problem of full-cup sinners any differently in the OT and NT. His life and teachings, while here in the flesh, reflect everything we need to know about God punishing and killing full-cup sinners in the OT.

K: I'm glad you cleared that up. For some reason I thought you thought Jesus acted differently in the OT than the NT.

Jesus did "act" differently in the NT. For example, He didn't command anyone to kill sinners. Nor did He employ the forces of nature to kill sinners. True, He taught these things, but He didn't demonstrate them.

Quote:

M: For example, Jesus taught:

Matthew
8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

K: What does that passage mean to you. Assuming that ekballo should not be translated as shut out, leave, or bring forth, whom is doing the casting, what is this outer darkness? How does it relate to what Jesus does or does not do in the OT and NT?

If we interpret this passage in light of all the other ones I posted above, the message is loud and clear - Jesus will use fire to punish and kill the wicked at the end of time. In one sense their names will be cast out of the Lamb's book of life. In another sense, they will be kept out of the New Jerusalem because of their unfitness. They will, of course, attempt to take it by force, but they will be arrested by the glory of Jesus and the Great White Throne. Being outside the City is being in outer darkness. While in this place of outer darkness they will suffer mental agony (weeping) and physical pain (gnashing of teeth). Although this passage makes it seem like they will be in this state forever, they will, however, eventually die as the other passages make clear.

Quote:

(ASV) but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

(CEV) But the ones who should have been in the kingdom will be thrown out into the dark. They will cry and grit their teeth in pain."

(KJVA) But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

(LITV) but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.

(MKJV) But the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

(RV) but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.

(YLT) but the sons of the reign shall be cast forth to the outer darkness--there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth.'

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/07/09 06:20 PM

Quote:

Jesus taught the reverse of this. For example:

Quote:

52And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

53And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9)

Over and over Christ affirmed the reverse of what you're suggesting. The Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son. The Son judges no one, but your words will judge you. The Son of Man came not to destroy man's lives but to save them. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world would be saved by Him.

Not only was Jesus non-violent, He was anti-violent. It's hard to imagine how someone could consider the life of Christ and come to the conclusion that He taught that we should kill sinners, or that God employs the forces of nature to kill.

The whole concept of killer God in the life and teachings of Christ is as contrary an idea to reality as one could have. One might as well assert that Christ taught a concept of God that encouraged sexual immorality or dishonesty.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/07/09 06:34 PM

Something else which comes to mind on this is that the SOP tells us that what gave power to Jesus' words is that He lived what He taught. Now Christ supposedly taught one thing but did another, which contradicts this principle. This hypocrisy would have undermined His teachings.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/08/09 06:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Jesus taught the reverse of this.

Yes, Jesus also taught the reverse, but in doing so He wasn't contradicting the reverse.

Originally Posted By: Tom

It's hard to imagine how someone could consider the life of Christ and come to the conclusion that He taught that we should kill sinners, or that God employs the forces of nature to kill.

One need only to read the Bible to learn the truth about it. The passages I posted above make it abundantly clearly that Jesus taught the truth about sin and judgment and punishment and death.

Originally Posted By: Tom

Tom, how do you interpret what Jesus taught about sin and judgment and punishment and death? Using only His words (which I posted above on this thread) please prove to me that Jesus taught your view of sin and death, namely, that sinners will suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness when they are exposed to the undiluted firelight of God's glory and presence. Again, use only His words, that is, the words in red in the Gospels.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/08/09 06:05 PM

PS - I have reposted the passages here:

Matthew
8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew
22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
22:14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen.

Matthew
24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
24:49 And shall begin to smite [his] fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and in an hour that he is not aware of,
24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strowed:
25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou hast [that is] thine.
25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strowed:
25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto him which hath ten talents.
25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
25:42 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/08/09 06:36 PM

Quote:

T:Jesus taught the reverse of this.

M:Yes, Jesus also taught the reverse, but in doing so He wasn't contradicting the reverse.

We disagree on this. I don't think Jesus contradicted Himself, teaching one thing while simultaneously teaching the reverse of that same thing. This would be pretty confusing, which I think helps explain why you often comment things like "I don't understand this" "this isn't valid" "this doesn't make sense" and so forth.

Quote:

Sure He taught the truth. But what's the truth? Is it what you think it is, or something else?

My comment was that it's hard to imagine how one could read the life of Christ and think we should kill sinners (to name one of two things mentioned). One could hardly imagine a conclusion more in contradiction to Jesus' teachings than this. "He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword." The whole point of this is to not live by the sword.

Quote:

Tom, how do you interpret what Jesus taught about sin and judgment and punishment and death?

I've written at length on this in the past. I'll see about putting something together on this.

Quote:

Using only His words (which I posted above on this thread) please prove to me that Jesus taught your view of sin and death, namely, that sinners will suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness when they are exposed to the undiluted firelight of God's glory and presence.

This sounds more like your view, not mine. I'm certainly not going to show that Jesus was teaching this!

Quote:

Again, use only His words, that is, the words in red in the Gospels.

Ok (regarding what I actually think, not what you wrote about it).

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/08/09 08:26 PM

Quote:

“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” John 3:19-21

Here Jesus speaks to what condemnation is. This goes along with Ty Gibson's observation that the condemnation of sin is organic to the sin itself. It's not something arbitrary which God does, but is a property of sin.

Jesus Christ revealed the character of God (this is the light). Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence.

Here's an example of this principle:

Quote:

15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'" (Mark 11)

The SOP makes it clear that it was not a physical action which caused the money changers to leave, but if one knows something about the actual size of the temple, the SOP's conclusions are evident from the account itself. The temple was a huge area, akin to a football field. There's no way Christ could physically have caused all these people to live over such a large area. Something happened to spook them.

Moving on, Jesus taught that the Father does not judge anyone, but that judgment has been committed to Him:

Quote:

22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son.(John 5)

Regarding His judging, He says:

Quote:

45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father.(John 5)

Also

Quote:

7"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. (John 12)

So putting this together, we see that judgement does not come as the result of an arbitrary action on the part of God (who does not judge, but has committed judgment to the Son) nor from Jesus Christ (who does not accuse, nor judge). Rather the judgment comes as a result of Jesus' word, which is the truth. Remembering that light signifies truth, we can see how this ties into Jesus' earlier statements regarding light.

These are a few thoughts. Of course, Jesus said much more, but this brings out a few principles.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/09/09 08:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

T: Jesus taught the reverse of this.

M: Yes, Jesus also taught the reverse, but in doing so He wasn't contradicting the reverse.

T: We disagree on this. I don't think Jesus contradicted Himself, teaching one thing while simultaneously teaching the reverse of that same thing. This would be pretty confusing, which I think helps explain why you often comment things like "I don't understand this" "this isn't valid" "this doesn't make sense" and so forth.

Come to think of it, you rarely admit that you don't understand something. Surely you must know then that I do not think Jesus taught contradicting things. The reverse of mercy is justice. Both are true, and Jesus taught both. Listen:

The long-suffering of God is wonderful. Long does justice wait while mercy pleads with the sinner. . . Even now they have almost exceeded the bounds of the long-suffering of God, the limits of His grace, the limits of His mercy. {COL 177.5} Were there no justice, no penalty, there would be no stability to the government of God. {AG 70.3} Grace and mercy will then descend from the throne, and justice will take their place. {LDE 240.3} In all the Bible, God is presented not only as a Being of mercy and benevolence, but as a God of strict and impartial justice. {LDE 240.4}

Interestingly, though, even the angels are baffled by the mystery of mercy. Listen:

This is the mystery of mercy into which angels desire to look--that God can be just while He justifies the repenting sinner and renews His intercourse with the fallen race; that Christ could stoop to raise unnumbered multitudes from the abyss of ruin and clothe them with the spotless garments of His own righteousness to unite with angels who have never fallen and to dwell forever in the presence of God. {GC 415.2}

I don't feel as dumb now because I don't understand the mystery of mercy, "that God can be just while He justifies the repenting sinner," knowing that the angels have a desire to study it more thoroughly (which I take to mean they don't understand it perfectly yet). Neither do I understand why God can justify pardoning and saving sinners in light of the fact law and justice demands death for sin. Why Jesus' death counts as my death is truly a mystery to me, the mystery of mercy.

Quote:

T: It's hard to imagine how someone could consider the life of Christ and come to the conclusion that He taught that we should kill sinners, or that God employs the forces of nature to kill.

M: One need only to read the Bible to learn the truth about it. The passages I posted above make it abundantly clearly that Jesus taught the truth about sin and judgment and punishment and death.

T: Sure He taught the truth. But what's the truth? Is it what you think it is, or something else? My comment was that it's hard to imagine how one could read the life of Christ and think we should kill sinners (to name one of two things mentioned). One could hardly imagine a conclusion more in contradiction to Jesus' teachings than this. "He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword." The whole point of this is to not live by the sword.

Do you know of anyone here who believes Jesus taught we should kill sinners? I know in the OT Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners, but I don't see where in the NT He commanded such a thing. Do you?

By the way, my comment above had to do with what Jesus taught about sin and judgment and punishment and death - not about commanding people to kill sinners.

Quote:

M: Tom, how do you interpret what Jesus taught about sin and judgment and punishment and death?

T: I've written at length on this in the past. I'll see about putting something together on this.

Please include the passages I posted and reposted above. Thank you.

Quote:

M: Using only His words (which I posted above on this thread) please prove to me that Jesus taught your view of sin and death, namely, that sinners will suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness when they are exposed to the undiluted firelight of God's glory and presence.

T: This sounds more like your view, not mine. I'm certainly not going to show that Jesus was teaching this!

What? Have you changed your mind? You have repeatedly quoted from the DA to prove that the glory (character) of God will cause sinners to suffer mental anguish in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. All I'm asking of you is to use the passages I posted and reposted above to support this idea.

Quote:

M: Again, use only His words, that is, the words in red in the Gospels.

T: Ok (regarding what I actually think, not what you wrote about it).

Thanx!

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/09/09 09:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

Here Jesus speaks to what condemnation is. This goes along with Ty Gibson's observation that the condemnation of sin is organic to the sin itself. It's not something arbitrary which God does, but is a property of sin. Jesus Christ revealed the character of God (this is the light). Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence.

Yes, people naturally feel guilty and ashamed when they sin. That's the way God designed and made them. However, sinners like Satan, who are dead in sin, are hardened beyond feeling guilt and shame. In such cases, when self-condemnation is void and absent, their condemnation and unfitness for heaven must be established in some other way. For this reason, I suppose, there will be a millennial period where the saints will review the verdicts of the wicked, and they will agree with them. Based on these judgments, the wicked dead will not be raised in the first resurrection, and the wicked living will not be caught up to meet Jesus in the air.

Originally Posted By: Tom

There's no way Christ could physically have caused all these people to live over such a large area. Something happened to spook them.

It was the divinity that flashed through His humanity that caused them to fear and flee for their lives. Listen:

When divinity flashed through humanity, not only did they see indignation on Christ's countenance; they realized the import of His words. They felt as if before the throne of the eternal Judge, with their sentence passed on them for time and for eternity. {DA 162.3}

A similar thing happened to Satan earlier on. Listen:

Satan had questioned whether Jesus was the Son of God. In his summary dismissal he had proof that he could not gainsay. Divinity flashed through suffering humanity. Satan had no power to resist the command. Writhing with humiliation and rage, he was forced to withdraw from the presence of the world's Redeemer. Christ's victory was as complete as had been the failure of Adam. {DA 130.3}

Originally Posted By: Tom

Who enforces the verdict? Will the wicked willing lay down and die? Here's how Ellen describes their reaction to the verdict:

Quote:

The whole wicked world stand arraigned at the bar of God on the charge of high treason against the government of heaven. They have none to plead their cause; they are without excuse; and the sentence of eternal death is pronounced against them. {GC 668.2}

It is now evident to all that the wages of sin is not noble independence and eternal life, but slavery, ruin, and death. The wicked see what they have forfeited by their life of rebellion. . . All see that their exclusion from heaven is just. By their lives they have declared: "We will not have this Man [Jesus] to reign over us." {GC 668.3}

Notwithstanding that Satan has been constrained to acknowledge God's justice and to bow to the supremacy of Christ, his character remains unchanged. The spirit of rebellion, like a mighty torrent, again bursts forth. Filled with frenzy, he determines not to yield the great controversy. . . The wicked are filled with the same hatred of God that inspires Satan; but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah. 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. {GC 671.2}

And then here's how she describes the actual execution of the sentence:

Quote:

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. 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}

You seem to be saying the verdict and the execution of the sentence, as described above, are somehow organic to sin itself, that it is the property of sin. Did I misunderstand you?

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 03/10/09 05:43 PM

T: I've been saying over and over again that the approach I think should be taken is to form a Model of God's character based on studying Jesus Christ, and only *then* go back and look at the OT.

K: MM, why shouldn't Jesus' life, which was intended to represent Jesus of the Old Testament, be the basis upon which to understand the Old Testament?

M: I believe His life and teachings represent everything we need to know about God in the OT and NT. Do you?

(I now noticed you inserted "and teachings")

K: I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain how if Jesus' life and teachings represent everything we need to know about God in the OT and NT, how you see Jesus in the Old Testament behaving different than that of the New.

M: I don't see Jesus addressing the problem of full-cup sinners any differently in the OT and NT. His life and teachings, while here in the flesh, reflect everything we need to know about God punishing and killing full-cup sinners in the OT. For example, Jesus taught:

Matthew
8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

K: I'm glad you cleared that up. For some reason I thought you thought Jesus acted differently in the OT than the NT.....What does that passage mean to you.

M: Jesus did "act" differently in the NT. For example, He didn't command anyone to kill sinners. Nor did He employ the forces of nature to kill sinners. True, He taught these things, but He didn't demonstrate them.

I'm getting a mouth full of flies again.

M: If we interpret this passage in light of all the other ones I posted above, the message is loud and clear - Jesus will use fire to punish and kill the wicked at the end of time.

Where does it clearly

say in the above passage that Jesus will use fire? I believe the commentary has a different view of what "outer darkness" is.

Fly time.

Tom asserted that a way of understanding the Old Testament is to look at it in the eyes of Jesus' life. I asked you why shouldn't Jesus' life be the basis of viewing His representation in the OT. You replied that His life (and added teachings) represent everything we need to know about Him in both the OT and NT. I then questioned if this being how you viewed it, how you saw Jesus behaving differently between the two. You then emphasized your added teachings and claimed that Jesus taught differently than He acted by quoting Matthew 8:11-12. However, I fail to see how that passage shows Jesus killing or using force to kill sinners or teaching that.

Could you shed light on how He taught differently than He lived?

Quote:

Yes, Jesus also taught the reverse, but in doing so He wasn't contradicting the reverse.

Are you saying that Jesus taught that He would use force Himself and command others to kill sinners and also taught that He would not use force Himself and command others to kill sinners?

If that were so, would that mean He didn't really teach anything?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/10/09 06:43 PM

Quote:

Come to think of it, you rarely admit that you don't understand something.

I would admit I don't fully understand something, but I don't often discuss regarding which I have no understanding. In this case I would tend to read things from others who do, or ask questions.

Quote:

Surely you must know then that I do not think Jesus taught contradicting things. The reverse of mercy is justice.

No, this isn't true. This is easily seen. If the reverse of mercy were justice, then the reverse of justice would be mercy. But the reverse of justice is not mercy, but injustice.

Quote:

Both are true, and Jesus taught both.

Yes, this is right.

Quote:

I don't feel as dumb now because I don't understand the mystery of mercy ...

This wasn't the issue. This was:

Quote:

T: Jesus taught the reverse of this.

M: Yes, Jesus also taught the reverse, but in doing so He wasn't contradicting the reverse.

Jesus did not simultaneously teach something and teach its reverse. (More later)

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/12/09 05:13 AM

Tom, Jesus taught mercy and justice. Let's eliminate the word "reverse". He demonstrated mercy while here, but He didn't demonstrate justice. I am, of course, referring to the following contrasts:

The long-suffering of God is wonderful. Long does justice wait while mercy pleads with the sinner. . . Even now they have almost exceeded the bounds of the long-suffering of God, the limits of His grace, the limits of His mercy. {COL 177.5}

Were there no justice, no penalty, there would be no stability to the government of God. {AG 70.3}

Grace and mercy will then descend from the throne, and justice will take their place. {LDE 240.3}

In all the Bible, God is presented not only as a Being of mercy and benevolence, but as a God of strict and impartial justice. {LDE 240.4}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/12/09 05:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Kland

K: I'm glad you cleared that up. For some reason I thought you thought Jesus acted differently in the OT than the NT.....What does that passage mean to you.

M: Jesus did "act" differently in the NT. For example, He didn't command anyone to kill sinners. Nor did He employ the forces of nature to kill sinners. True, He taught these things, but He didn't demonstrate them.

K: I'm getting a mouth full of flies again.

It's protein!

Quote:

M: If we interpret this passage in light of all the other ones I posted above, the message is loud and clear - Jesus will use fire to punish and kill the wicked at the end of time.

K: Where does it clearly say in the above passage that Jesus will use fire? I believe the commentary has a different view of what "outer darkness" is.

If we interpret this passage in light of all the other ones I posted above, the message is loud and clear - Jesus will use fire to punish and kill the wicked at the end of time.

Quote:

K: Tom asserted that a way of understanding the Old Testament is to look at it in the eyes of Jesus' life. I asked you why shouldn't Jesus' life be the basis of viewing His representation in the OT. You replied that His life (and added teachings) represent everything we need to know about Him in both the OT and NT. I then questioned if this being how you viewed it, how you saw Jesus behaving differently between the two. You then emphasized your added teachings and claimed that Jesus taught differently than He acted by quoting Matthew 8:11-12. However, I fail to see how that passage shows Jesus killing or using force to kill sinners or teaching that.

Could you shed light on how He taught differently than He lived?

I've been saying "life and teachings" all along. It's a class in college, you know. Like NT authors, who taught things they didn't act out, so too, Jesus taught things He didn't act out. For example, John, the loved and loving disciple, wrote about the punishment and suffering and death of the wicked at the end of time; however, he was the greatest pacifist.

Quote:

M: Yes, Jesus also taught the reverse, but in doing so He wasn't contradicting the reverse.

K: Are you saying that Jesus taught that He would use force Himself and command others to kill sinners and also taught that He would not use force Himself and command others to kill sinners?

No.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 03/12/09 04:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Originally Posted By: Kland

Quote:

If we interpret this passage in light of all the other ones I posted above, the message is loud and clear - Jesus will use fire to punish and kill the wicked at the end of time.

But, if we interpret this passage in light of all the other ones Tom and I posted above, the message is loud and clear - Jesus will NOT punish and directly kill the wicked at the end of time.
How do we decide which passage to use? (seems like I have asked this before) Should we just consider you are the expert and go with that? Why do we have to interpret "in light" of certain others? Is that because the passage itself doesn't say, but one has to gather others that seem to support their presumed premise in order to interpret it?

Quote:

Could you shed light on how He taught differently than He lived?

Ok. Could you shed light on how He taught differently than He lived?

Quote:

No.

Ok. What are you saying when you said He taught the reverse? I noticed you are eliminating the word "reverse", so what word are you putting in it's place or... just what did you mean by that statement?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/12/09 09:12 PM

Quote:

Tom, Jesus taught mercy and justice. Let's eliminate the word "reverse". He demonstrated mercy while here, but He didn't demonstrate justice.

Jesus Christ did not demonstrate justice! Wow, what an affirmation! Jesus Christ was *the* demonstration of justice. It is because of Christ that we can know what justice is. His entire life was a just one, one which corresponded to and revealed justice.

Quote:

Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.(Matt. 12:18)

Quote:

A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. (Matt. 12:20)

Quote:

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?(Micah 6:8)

The first two speak for themselves. The last one I cited because surely no one epitomized this more than Jesus Christ.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/14/09 11:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Kland

M: If we interpret this passage in light of all the other ones I posted above, the message is loud and clear - Jesus will use fire to punish and kill the wicked at the end of time.

K: But, if we interpret this passage in light of all the other ones Tom and I posted above, the message is loud and clear - Jesus will NOT punish and directly kill the wicked at the end of time. How do we decide which passage to use?

Please repost the passages you believe proves Jesus taught He will not punish and "directly kill" (as opposed to what?) the wicked at the end of time. Here are the passages I believe teach He will use literal fire to punish and destroy the wicked:

Matthew
3:12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Matthew
5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Matthew
8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew
13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Matthew
22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
22:14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen.

Matthew
24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
24:49 And shall begin to smite [his] fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and in an hour that he is not aware of,
24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strowed:
25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou hast [that is] thine.
25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strowed:
25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto him which hath ten talents.
25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
25:42 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Mark
9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Luke
12:4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Luke
17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all.
17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

John
15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.

Quote:

K: Could you shed light on how He taught differently than He lived?

The passages above reflect teachings that Jesus did not demonstrate while He was here in the flesh. For example, Jesus did not use fire to punish the wicked while He was here.

Quote:

K: What are you saying when you said He taught the reverse?

He taught the truth about mercy and justice, which are opposites sides of the same coin. I have the following insights in mind:

The long-suffering of God is wonderful. Long does justice wait while mercy pleads with the sinner. . . Even now they have almost exceeded the bounds of the long-suffering of God, the limits of His grace, the limits of His mercy. {COL 177.5}

Were there no justice, no penalty, there would be no stability to the government of God. {AG 70.3}

Grace and mercy will then descend from the throne, and justice will take their place. {LDE 240.3}

In all the Bible, God is presented not only as a Being of mercy and benevolence, but as a God of strict and impartial justice. {LDE 240.4}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/15/09 12:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: Tom, Jesus taught mercy and justice. Let's eliminate the word "reverse". He demonstrated mercy while here, but He didn't demonstrate justice.

T: Jesus Christ did not demonstrate justice! Wow, what an affirmation! Jesus Christ was *the* demonstration of justice. It is because of Christ that we can know what justice is. His entire life was a just one, one which corresponded to and revealed justice.

In what sense did Jesus, while He was here, exercise the kind of justice described in the following passages:

The long-suffering of God is wonderful. Long does justice wait while mercy pleads with the sinner. . . Even now they have almost exceeded the bounds of the long-suffering of God, the limits of His grace, the limits of His mercy. {COL 177.5}

Were there no justice, no penalty, there would be no stability to the government of God. {AG 70.3} Grace and mercy will then descend from the throne, and justice will take their place. {LDE 240.3}

In all the Bible, God is presented not only as a Being of mercy and benevolence, but as a God of strict and impartial justice. {LDE 240.4} This one marked evidence of God's retributive justice is fearful, and should lead all to fear and tremble to repeat sins which brought such a punishment. {CC 330.2}

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. {CC 155.4}

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. {GC 627.2}

Justice requires that men shall have light, and it also requires that he who refuses to walk in the Heaven-given light, the giving of which cost the death of the Son of God, must receive punishment. It is a principle of justice that the guilt of the sinner shall be proportionate to the knowledge given, but not used, or used in a wrong way. {HP 153.3}

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/15/09 04:08 PM

Quote:

Let's deal with one thing at a time. Here you claim that Christ did not demonstrate justice. I cited Scriptures showing that He did. Do you now agree that Jesus Christ did demonstrate justice? After dealing with this, we can look at your new question (which is asking if Jesus Christ "exercised", as opposed to "revealed" a specific aspect of justice, a far less strong implied assertion than the one you actually made).

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/15/09 08:14 PM

Tom, all along I've been talking about the type of justice described in the passages posted above. How long have you been assuming I was referring to justice as it relates to fairness and equity?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/15/09 08:15 PM

PS - To address your point - Yes, I believe Jesus demonstrated fairness and equity while here.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/15/09 10:52 PM

"Justice" is not simply fairness and equity. The word "justice" in the Greek is the same word translated in English as "righteousness."

The Scriptural idea of "justice" is setting things right, of restoring the covenant community to shalom.

You're speaking of retributive justice, and we've already spoken of this at length. The cursing of the fig tree is an example of Christ's teaching this principle.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/16/09 10:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: In what sense did Jesus, while He was here, exercise the kind of justice described in the following passages:

The long-suffering of God is wonderful. Long does justice wait while mercy pleads with the sinner. . . Even now they have almost exceeded the bounds of the long-suffering of God, the limits of His grace, the limits of His mercy. {COL 177.5}

Were there no justice, no penalty, there would be no stability to the government of God. {AG 70.3} Grace and mercy will then descend from the throne, and justice will take their place. {LDE 240.3}

In all the Bible, God is presented not only as a Being of mercy and benevolence, but as a God of strict and impartial justice. {LDE 240.4} This one marked evidence of God's retributive justice is fearful, and should lead all to fear and tremble to repeat sins which brought such a punishment. {CC 330.2}

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. {CC 155.4}

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. {GC 627.2}

Justice requires that men shall have light, and it also requires that he who refuses to walk in the Heaven-given light, the giving of which cost the death of the Son of God, must receive punishment. It is a principle of justice that the guilt of the sinner shall be proportionate to the knowledge given, but not used, or used in a wrong way. {HP 153.3}

T: The cursing of the fig tree is an example of Christ's teaching this principle.

Did God ever curse a fig tree in the OT? Do you know of time when Jesus, while here, exercised retributive justice on full-cup sinners like God did in the OT?

Regarding the time Jesus cursed the fig tree. Do you see an organic relationship between sin and death in this case? That is, do you think the tree's sin is what caused the tree to wither and die so quickly? This assumes, of course, the tree is symbolic of sinners. What I'm asking is how you see this event illustrating the organic nature of what sinners will experience at the end of time.

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/17/09 04:48 PM

Quote:

Did God ever curse a fig tree in the OT?

He did the same thing in principle. The cursing of the fig tree was an acted out parable.

Quote:

Do you know of time when Jesus, while here, exercised retributive justice on full-cup sinners like God did in the OT?

This has been my point. God, in the OT, acted like Jesus Christ in the New. You've misunderstood God's actions in the OT (IMO, of course). I've been suggesting formulating a model of God's character based on Jesus Christ first, and then go back to look at the OT. Perhaps, if you did this, you might view these actions in a different light.

However, you seem predisposed to do the reverse, which is to interpret Jesus Christ's actions according to the understandings you already have of God's OT actions. Even holy angels were not able to completely rightly divide things until Christ came along.

Jesus said the things He did is what He saw His Father do, and the things He spoke is what He heard His Father speak. So Jesus was saying, "When you See Me, you've seen the Father."

There's no difference.

The reason *we* perceive a difference is we don't have the eye salve that Jesus had. We perceive Jesus to have acted differently, but Jesus didn't perceive things this way.

So who's right? We, or Jesus?

Quote:

Regarding the time Jesus cursed the fig tree. Do you see an organic relationship between sin and death in this case?

The death of which sin is the inevitable result is the second death. This is the result of moral decisions, so it doesn't apply to trees.

Quote:

That is, do you think the tree's sin is what caused the tree to wither and die so quickly? This assumes, of course, the tree is symbolic of sinners. What I'm asking is how you see this event illustrating the organic nature of what sinners will experience at the end of time.

It was an acted out parable of the destruction of Jerusalem. The principle is spelled out here:

Quote:

(I)t is in mercy and love that He lifts the veil from the future, and reveals to men the results of a course of sin.

The cursing of the fig tree was an acted parable. That barren tree, flaunting its pretentious foliage in the very face of Christ, was a symbol of the Jewish nation. The Saviour desired to make plain to His disciples the cause and the certainty of Israel's doom. For this purpose He invested the tree with moral qualities, and made it the expositor of divine truth. The Jews stood forth distinct from all other nations, professing allegiance to God. They had been specially favored by Him, and they laid claim to righteousness above every other people. But they were corrupted by the love of the world and the greed of gain. They boasted of their knowledge, but they were ignorant of the requirements of God, and were full of hypocrisy. Like the barren tree, they spread their pretentious branches aloft, luxuriant in appearance, and beautiful to the eye, but they yielded "nothing but leaves." The Jewish religion, with its magnificent temple, its sacred altars, its mitered priests and impressive ceremonies, was indeed fair in outward appearance, but humility, love, and benevolence were lacking....

The Jews, who had received greater blessings from God, were held accountable for their abuse of these gifts. The privileges of which they boasted only increased their guilt....

The treasures of truth which God had committed to them, they did not give to the world. In the barren tree they might read both their sin and its punishment. Withered beneath the Saviour's curse, standing forth sere and blasted, dried up by the roots, the fig tree showed what the Jewish people would be when the grace of God was removed from them. Refusing to impart blessing, they would no longer receive it. "O Israel," the Lord says, "thou hast destroyed thyself." Hosea 13:9. (DA 582-583)

Here she comments on the destruction of Jerusalem:

Quote:

The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (GC 36)

You can see she quotes the same text, "Thou hast destroyed thyself."

So the cursing of the fig tree was an acted out parable of the destruction to come upon Jerusalem if they continued on the course they were on. As the fig tree caused Christ to withdraw, resulting in its nourishment being retracted (note the fig tree died due to a withering of the roots; it was not smitten by a bolt of lightening, for example) so Jerusalem caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them.

Posted By: kland

Re: The Covenants - 03/17/09 05:10 PM

MM: "Here are the passages I believe teach He will use literal fire to punish and destroy the wicked:"

Quote:

Matthew
5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Tom, when I conclude you believe something, without asking for clarification, you usually get offended. So, I'm trying not to assume what you believe. I don't know your answer to the question above. I am fairly certain you believe Jesus demonstrated everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. You often quote the following to support your assertion: "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} At other times it seems like you're saying Jesus didn't actually demonstrate everything there is to know about God, that He resorted to talking about some of it.

So, Tom, help me out. Are you saying Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted sinners to suffer and die while He was here in the flesh? If not, what are you saying?

PS - I realize you believe your humane hunter story illustrates God running the risk of being misunderstood as being in favor of capital punishment when He commanded Moses to stone sinners to death. But what I don't understand is why you think God felt it was necessary to command it. Why do you think God command capital punishment in the OT?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/27/09 05:56 AM

Quote:

I am fairly certain you believe Jesus demonstrated everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. You often quote the following to support your assertion: "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}

I've not said "demonstrated." I've said "revealed," just like the quote.

Quote:

At other times it seems like you're saying Jesus didn't actually demonstrate everything there is to know about God, that He resorted to talking about some of it.

Again, I don't believe I've ever said "demonstrated." I know you have many times, but I don't believe I have.

Quote:

So, Tom, help me out. Are you saying Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted sinners to suffer and die while He was here in the flesh? If not, what are you saying?

You've asked this several dozen times. I gave you a whole list of examples, saying that Jerusalem was the clearest and most detailed. You didn't like any of the examples. They didn't "cut it" for you. You don't remember this?

Quote:

PS - I realize you believe your humane hunter story illustrates God running the risk of being misunderstood as being in favor of capital punishment when He commanded Moses to stone sinners to death. But what I don't understand is why you think God felt it was necessary to command it. Why do you think God command capital punishment in the OT?

For the reasons the SOP specifies.

I think you're playing the part of a neighbor overhearing the conversation between the father and his son. You've misunderstood God. The only way to understand God, that I can think of, is to apprehend the revelation of His Son.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/28/09 09:38 PM

Tom, once again I have no idea what you believe about it. You have never clearly stated your position. Why did God command capital punishment?

"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 expression "revealed in the life and character" implies words and actions. Listen:

Quote:

It is in a crisis that character is revealed. {COL 412.1}

Often those who are seeking to exalt themselves are brought into positions where their true character is revealed. {CC 154.4}

If the heart has been renewed by the Spirit of God, the life will bear witness to the fact. While we cannot do anything to change our hearts or to bring ourselves into harmony with God; while we must not trust at all to ourselves or our good works, our lives will reveal whether the grace of God is dwelling within us. A change will be seen in the character, the habits, the pursuits. The contrast will be clear and decided between what they have been and what they are. The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts. {SC 57.2}

So, if I'm decoding your words correctly, you believe since Jesus spoke about the Jews being killed in the future that this counts as Him revealing in words what God revealed in actions. IOW, Jesus talked about withdrawing His protection and permitting the Jews to be killed; whereas, God actually did it over and over again. Right?

BTW, what about Jesus and capital punishment? Did He talk about commanding people to use capital punishment to kill sinners? If not, why not?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/29/09 07:05 AM

MM, I've answered these questions many times. Except these:

Quote:

BTW, what about Jesus and capital punishment? Did He talk about commanding people to use capital punishment to kill sinners? If not, why not?

"Did He talk about commanding people to use capital to kill sinners?" I don't know what you're asking here.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/29/09 06:49 PM

Tom, do you believe since Jesus spoke about the Jews being killed in the future that this counts as Him revealing in words what God revealed in actions? Do you think this is what Ellen meant in 8T 286?

But what about Jesus and capital punishment? God commanded capital punishment. Did Jesus reveal this aspect of God's character through His parables or instructions or teachings? Or, is this an aspect of God's character Jesus didn't reveal in His life and character and teachings?

Posted By: Tom

Re: The Covenants - 03/29/09 07:04 PM

Quote:

Tom, do you believe since Jesus spoke about the Jews being killed in the future that this counts as Him revealing in words what God revealed in actions?

I've quoted for you in Matthew where Jesus says He would gather them up as chicks many times. This is an action.

Quote:

Do you think this is what Ellen White meant in 8T 286?

I think Ellen White meant that Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know of God (which encompasses all that man needs to know of God). Christ revealed things by both His actions and words.

Quote:

But what about Jesus and capital punishment? God commanded capital punishment. Did Jesus reveal this aspect of God's character through His parables or instructions or teachings? Or, is this an aspect of God's character Jesus didn't reveal in His life and character and teachings?

I think you're going at this backwards, still. I've been suggesting going at this from the other direction. First formulate a model of God's character based on what Christ has revealed. Then consider these types of questions.

Instead of doing this, you keep asking me the types of questions I'm suggesting are better off addressing after doing what I'm suggesting. So by answering these questions I'm being counter-productive to my own advice. So I think I'll stop.

Let's consider the life of Christ. What do you think Christ was like?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/31/09 03:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom

M: Tom, do you believe since Jesus spoke about the Jews being killed in the future that this counts as Him revealing in words what God revealed in actions?

T: I've quoted for you in Matthew where Jesus says He would gather them up as chicks many times. This is an action.

Do you think the fact Jesus said He would have gathered them under His wings like a hen that saying so constitutes an action? And, do you think saying this revealed in words what God revealed in actions? For example, God withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to kill millions of mothers and infants. Do you think Jesus revealed this attribute of God's character by saying what He said about chicks?

Quote:

M: Do you think this is what Ellen White meant in 8T 286?

T: I think Ellen White meant that Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know of God (which encompasses all that man needs to know of God). Christ revealed things by both His actions and words.

I agree. Except I'm not sure if Jesus taught or demonstrated commanding people to kill sinners. I suppose the case of the woman caught in the act of adultery touches on it.

Quote:

M: But what about Jesus and capital punishment? God commanded capital punishment. Did Jesus reveal this aspect of God's character through His parables or instructions or teachings? Or, is this an aspect of God's character Jesus didn't reveal in His life and character and teachings?

T: I think you're going at this backwards, still. I've been suggesting going at this from the other direction. First formulate a model of God's character based on what Christ has revealed. Then consider these types of questions.

Instead of doing this, you keep asking me the types of questions I'm suggesting are better off addressing after doing what I'm suggesting. So by answering these questions I'm being counter-productive to my own advice. So I think I'll stop.

Let's consider the life of Christ. What do you think Christ was like?

The problem with this suggestion is that you haven't cited anything in the life and teachings of Jesus that can help us understand the attributes of God's character that enables Him to command people to kill sinners. Or, do you think God has never commanded anyone to kill sinners? Is that what you believe based on the fact there is nothing in the life and teachings of Jesus that reflect commanding capital punishment?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Covenants - 03/31/09 03:26 AM

Tom, according to the following passage, God commanded Moses and the Jews to stone a Sabbath-breaker to death, which they did. Do you think God actually commanded them to stone the guy to death? Or, do you think they misunderstood God?

Numbers
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.