How would God have given them weapons if He wanted to?
If He wanted to do so miraculously, He could have created them, and given them to the COI. Another way would be to direct them in creating their own weapons.
Did He drown the Egyptians in the Red Sea and then direct the COI to gather up the weapons?
No.
Also, you didn’t answer my question. Did God direct them in violating His law by teaching them how to get divorced, to practice polygamy, and to slaughter their enemies in combat?
Is it against His law to do these things?
T: This doesn't have any thing to do with my point, which is that if you believe that:
a. Capital Punishment is the penalty for sin.
b. Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sin.
then it follows you believe that
c. Jesus Christ was capitally punished.
M:Yes, it is true that Jesus experienced corporal punishment for our sins on the cross. Remember, though, that capital punishment includes death. Consequently, the fact Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered our second death, rather than succumbing to it, is evidence He is our Substitute and Savior. As such, is it accurate to conclude, “Jesus Christ was capitally punished”? I don't think so.
So it is your view that in order to "pay the penalty" it was necessary for Christ to "taste" death, but He didn't actually have to die? How does "tasting" death satisfy the legal requirement that the sinner must die?
Yes, I believe atonement includes empowering sinners to love and obey God. Please keep this in mind as we pursue other important aspects of atonement.
If atonement is "at-one-ment," then to say the "other important aspects" must be related to this (i.e., to "at-one-ment"; which is, being made at one).
M: Why do you think John 3:16 supports your idea that faith and repentance is the only way to be freed from sin?
T: I'll quote from the SOP to explain this:
I think this explains it clearly. If you don't see this, I'll go through the quote point by point to explain how it makes the point that repentance and faith sets us free from sin.
M:“. . . so the Son of man has been lifted up . . .” Why was it necessary for Jesus to suffer and die as though He committed every sin ever committed? Was it merely to motivate sinners to love and obey God? Or, does it also involve honoring the law by satisfying its just and loving demands, namely, that death must happen in consequence of sin?
You asked why I thought that one is freed from sin by faith and repentance. I explained why. What do these questions have to do with that?
Regarding your questions, they have false assumptions, from my standpoint. Enough so that I think you should quote something I've actually said and ask me about that. I'll comment on one point, however, and that is that you appear to believe that the just and loving demands of the law are a separate issue. If it were a separate issue, then it should have applied to Lucifer, and God should not have been able to pardon him nor allow him back to his original post simply on the basis of repentance and submission.
Assuming God was willing to pardon Lucifer on condition of submission and repentance, without also requiring the death of Jesus, as if creature merit is sufficient to atone for sin, and then postulating it proves Jesus didn’t have to suffer and die to satisfy the demands of law and justice is an unwarranted conclusion.
I believe you're making false assumptions here. First of all, you say "assuming God was willing." We don't need to "assume" this, as we've been flat out told this was the case. Secondly "as if creature merit is sufficient to atone for sin" is assuming that the very point we're discussing is true. Rather than assuming this is true, let's consider the evidence. God gave Lucifer a chance to confess his sin, and return to his post. Had he repented and submitted, he would have been pardoned. If the issue were one of having to pay for atonement, surely this wouldn't have been possible. Therefore the assumption is false. So rather than assuming the idea she's articulating is that Lucifer's repentance and submission would be an atonement for sin, consider another possibility that fits with the evidence, which is that this wasn't the issue that needed to be resolved. Lucifer needed to be reconciled to God. That was the issue. In order to be reconciled to God, it was necessary that he repent. In order for man, whose circumstances were different than Lucifer's, it was necessary for Christ to die. Why? The DA passage from page 762 I think it is, that I've quoted many times, explains why. Also the following comment by Fifield nails the issue on the head:
God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” The life of Christ was not the price paid to the father for our pardon; but the life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely.(God is Love)
Weeping and gnashing of teeth can happen for reasons other than the one you are suggesting. Are you suggesting the wicked will experience the same kind of soul anguish Jesus did and for the same reasons?
I'm suggesting the following:
Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. (DA 753)
Note this speaks of Christ feeling the anguish the wicked will feel.
In response to this, you wrote, “Regarding the GC 673 statements, this isn't all she wrote on the subject. She also wrote DA [764], and GC 541-543, and DA 107,108, to name three other places that speak to this. I've yet to see any explanation on your part that takes into account these other passages.”
Here’s what DA 764 says about it: “By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.”
Here’s what GC 541-543 says about it: “A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. . . It is in mercy to the universe that God will finally destroy the rejecters of His grace.”
Here’s what DA 107-108 says about it: “In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them.”
Please note that she attributes their death to three different things – 1) His very presence, 2) the glory of God, and 3) the Spirit of God. Elsewhere she says, 4) “The glory of His countenance, which to the righteous is life, will be to the wicked a consuming fire.” (DA 600) The following passages provide an insight into the physical effect of being exposed to the light that God radiates:...
MM, this whole thing seems circular. You for some reason believe that when it speaks of the glory of the Lord destroying the wicked this is primarily a physical thing, in spite of the fact that she has specifically identified God's glory as being His character, and the context of DA 108 bears this out (she speaks of Christ as the revealer of God's character in the sentence immediately following the statement that the light of His glory, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked.
Consider the following from DA 107, which you quoted:
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. {DA 107.4}
You quoted this as giving insight to the light, as if this would show it's physical here, although the context elsewhere shows it's not. But it's not physical here either. The wicked are not zapped by Christ, like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it is the revelation of His character which has led to their downfall. This can be seen in a couple of ways.
1.The following is from GC 37:
Then shall they that obey not the gospel be consumed with the spirit of His mouth, and be destroyed with the brightness of His coming. 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.
This brings out that the principles in DA 107 are the same as in GC 35-37! The wicked destroy themselves, and how they do so is explained by the principles in GC 35-37 (which quotes the same 2 Thes. passage DA 107 quotes).
2.GC 657 says the following:
In the mad strife of their own fierce passions, and by the awful outpouring of God's unmingled wrath, fall the wicked inhabitants of the earth,—priests, rulers, and people, rich and poor, high and low. "And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried."
At the coming of Christ the wicked are blotted from the face of the whole earth,—consumed with the spirit of His mouth, and destroyed by the brightness of His glory. Christ takes His people to the city of God, and the earth is emptied of its inhabitants.
If they fall because of the mad strife of their passions, etc., then they don't fall because of physical light emanating from Christ.
However, if we understand this light to be the light of His glory, then everything fits together. Before the coming of Christ is to be a message of God's character:
The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.(COL 415)
This is the brightness of His glory which destroys the wicked! Earlier we see that, as Jerusalem of old, they destroy themselves. What caused the destruction of Jerusalem of old? The same thing which will cause the destruction of the wicked at Christ's coming: the revelation of God's character. When the light of God's character is rejected, the wicked are left to their "mad strife" and the control of Satan; they destroy themselves.
So we see the same principles at work in GC 35-37 as at the Second Coming of Christ.
Again, you wrote, "This doesn't have anything to do with DA 764, and does violence to the text of DA 107, 108 . . ." So, as you can see, what I wrote was consistent with the passages you referenced.
The consistency I see is the rejection of similar principles in each of the passages.
Remember, we were talking about the effect of the light of God on the wicked during judgment at the end of time (not the effect Christ's presence on sinners while He was here in the flesh - "His very presence would make manifest to men their sin.") Ellen White speaks of something similar in the following passage: "As soon as the books of record are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon the wicked, they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed." {GC 666.2}
Again, these are all referencing the same principles.
T: This is similar to your claim that God didn't use force of violence. You have a view of things which indicates you believe God did use force and violence, according to how the dictionary defines these words. Similarly if one considers the definition of the word "arbitrary," it exactly corresponds to what you are describing. But you don't like these words, so you reject them. But you keep the ideas the words are describing.
M:I realize this is how you view it. However, there are other ways to see it.
Clearly there are other ways to see this, since it is seen in other ways.
BTW, why do you think it isn’t forceful or violent when God withdraws His protection and permits infants to be killed?
Why do you think I think this?
You seem to think God is innocent of any culpability.
Since I've been saying all along that God is innocent of any culpability, I'm glad you at least recognize I "seem" to think this.
