HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums & Chat Rooms
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested $20 or Higher Donations Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading
Donations accepted: Here
Shout Box

Newest Members
Heidi K, Frmdusk2dawn, Fred88, Christian G, The Wanderer
1291 Registered Users
Forum Stats
1291 Members
118 Forums
8562 Topics
183347 Posts

Max Online: 1283 @ 05/14/17 03:59 PM
Who's OnIine In
Chat Room #1?
Right Click Here & Select "Open in New Tab or Window" to Enter Chat Room #1 or Just Simply Click Here
Join the following presently in Chat Room #1:

Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

Top Posters (30 Days)
dedication 68
APL 26
kland 18
Daryl 17
The Wanderer 5
Elle 5
ProdigalOne 5
October
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Featured Member
Registered: 04/03/17
Posts: 253
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
6 registered (Nadi, ProdigalOne, dedication, Daryl, 2 invisible), 297 Guests and 12 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 72 of 105 < 1 2 ... 70 71 72 73 74 ... 104 105 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#132668 - 04/14/11 08:40 AM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Quote:
NJK: Though I’ll gradually be continuing to respond to the previous posts of yours that I have not yet responded to, I propose/agree to focusedly discuss the ‘Pharaoh and the Plagues’ issue separately, now. Do you accept/agree?

Tom: Sure, I'm happy to discuss whatever you'd like to.


Great! For your convenience, I have reposted here (from this post) the exegetical Biblical foundational basis for my view on the Plagues.

Exod 4:21 - God says in advance to Moses that: ‘He will harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he will not let the people go.’

Exod 7:13 - (Rod-to-Serpent Miracles) - Pharaoh’s heart was (naturally = Qal) hardened

1. Exod 7:22 (Blood) - Pharaoh’s heart was (naturally = Qal) hardened
2. Exod 8:15 (Frogs) - Pharaoh begs relief, promises freedom (8:8) but “causes his heart to be heavy” (#03513) = Hiphil here (vs. naturally be, or have it forcefully made to be, “hardened” (#02388), including by God.)
3. Exod 8:19 (Gnats) - Pharaoh’s heart was (naturally = Qal) hardened
4. Exod 8:32 (Flies) - Pharaoh bargains (8:28) but then causes his heart to be “heavy” (#03513) = Hiphil
5. Exod 9:7 (Livestock Diseased) - Pharaoh saw that no Israel livestock was affected (9:7a) but ‘caused his heart to be “heavy”’ (#03513) = Hiphil
6. Exod 9:12 (Boils) - Magicians cannot stand before Moses (8:11) but Yahweh (forcefully = Piel) hardened Pharaoh’s heart
7. Exod 9:34, 35 (Hail) - Pharaoh, with cessation of plague of Plague, ‘caused his heart to be “heavy”’ (#03513) = Hiphil (9:34) and thus his heart was (naturally = Qal) hardened. (9:35)
8. Exod 10:20 (Locust) - Pharaoh concedes (10:11) and asks for forgiveness (10:16-18) but Yahweh (forcefully = Piel) hardened Pharaoh’s heart
9. Exod 10:27 (Darkness) - Pharaoh concedes (10:24) but Yahweh (forcefully = Piel) hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he threatens Moses with death for any future return. (10:28)
10. Exod 11:9, 10; 13:15 (Death of Firstborn) - Yahweh (forcefully = Piel) hardened Pharaoh’s heart

Exod 14:4, 8, 17 - God continues to harden Pharaoh heart after the Exodus, so that he would chase after the Israelites while they were on their journey, in order to destroy the Egyptians armies in the Red Sea.

(See also Exod 3:21, 22; 11:2, 3; 12:33, 35-36; Psa 105:37, 38).

Based on all of this, it seems to me that God fulfilled His promise of hardening Pharaoh’s heart only when it was necessary. (I.e., Plague #6, 8, 9, 10). Otherwise Pharaoh either “naturally” (Qals) did this or “caused it to become the case” (Hiphils) on his own. EGW states in PP 268 that:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 268.1
There was no exercise of supernatural power to harden the heart of the king. God gave to Pharaoh the most striking evidence of divine power, but the monarch stubbornly refused to heed the light. Every display of infinite power rejected by him, rendered him the more determined in his rebellion. The seeds of rebellion that he sowed when he rejected the first miracle, produced their harvest. As he continued to venture on in his own course, going from one degree of stubbornness to another, his heart became more and more hardened, until he was called to look upon the cold, dead faces of the first-born. {PP 268.1}

however I see this as not an “I was shown statement” but only a reasoned understanding, and, as seen in the exegetical indicators in that Biblical episode, God Himself did “forcefully” bring about this hardening result, indeed when Pharaoh conceded defeat, in at least four of the plagues and also following the plagues in the Military Expedition.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The way people traditionally see the plagues is that God employed more and more force until God forced Pharaoh to do something against his will. This would certainly bean "act of compelling," as you put it.

I rather see it, as God Himself states in e.g, Exod 7:3, 4; 11:9 that this hardening was actively done by God, when needed, so that: ‘God’s wonders will be multiplied in the land of Egypt.’
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#132669 - 04/14/11 09:50 AM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project]
kland Offline
SDA
Active Member 2017

4500+ Member
Registered: 10/28/08
Posts: 4970
Loc: Midland
Originally Posted By: NJK
I have already explained why which you have not addressed. So simply restating them without addressing those replies, even if EGW stated them does not prove anything.

It sounds like you don't really believe what EGW says, that you believe in a God of violence whether you whitewash it or not, and that you see nothing wrong with killing others if it suits your purpose (as long as it's for a good reason).

Do you see why I can understand why the Inquisition, and Hitler, was allowed (the people permitted rather than rebelled) to happen and will happen in the future?

The cry of the mob rules the day and all the people saw no problem -- because it was "just".
Kill the Infidel!
It's God's way.
Top
#132673 - 04/14/11 10:43 AM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: kland]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Quote:
NJK: I have already explained why which you have not addressed. So simply restating them without addressing those replies, even if EGW stated them does not prove anything.

kland: It sounds like you don't really believe what EGW says,


In this case, No, as the “Greater Light of the Bible” unequivocally states otherwise and the two views are not reconcilable. So in such a case, as always, the comments/view of EGW are deemed to be in error. This is the objective approach of deciding between the Bible and EGW’s comment, vs. your subjective approach based on your private view/philosophy on killing vs. murder. And, as already clearly stated, I do see a difference between EGW and the SOP, with the latter being direct (“I was shown”) revelations from God and the former being her comments based upon her Theological/Biblical understandings.

Originally Posted By: kland
...that you believe in a God of violence whether you whitewash it or not,


I don’t see justice and the execution of a sentence as violence, especially when done by the Inerrant, Perfect and Just (among many other Character traits of His), God I believe in and serve, as He has consistently revealed Himself to be in the Bible.

Originally Posted By: kland
and that you see nothing wrong with killing others if it suits your purpose (as long as it's for a good reason).


Exacting Justice and Defending oneself in war is not ‘suiting one’s purpose’. That cause is indeed a ‘good one.’

Originally Posted By: kland
Do you see why I can understand why the Inquisition, and Hitler, was allowed (the people permitted rather than rebelled) to happen and will happen in the future?


Simply said: “No”.

Originally Posted By: kland
The cry of the mob rules the day and all the people saw no problem -- because it was "just".


It objectively and Biblically, clearly was not.

Originally Posted By: kland
Kill the Infidel!
It's God's way.


Only if it actually is the Truth and is God’s express mandate and that includes having a just cause. Only God can state when this is to be done. Indeed I see these actions in the OT consistently being directly and explicitly ordered by God when they had to be done.

I hope you weren’t saying/implying that the Inquisition and/or Hitler’s atrocities were God’s Way or even Will??

If you want to disprove me on this, you’ll have to make exegetical and Biblical arguments, rather then these peripheral and philosophical ones. Even attacking me personally won’t work nor prove anything. My views are shaped by the concrete truth of the Bible and not fickle and subjective human reasoning!
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#132674 - 04/14/11 11:37 AM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Quote:
NJK: For example, (and correct me if I mis-restated your view) in our discussion on the Fruit of Life, I see and say that in God’s perfect plan (i.e., before sin was ever a factor in anything), we were meant to live forever by our partaking of the Fruit of Life. You categorically say no and point to the post-sin provision made by Christ on the Cross as the only means to live eternally, and that the Tree of Life was only a substantively vacuous object lesson of that.

Tom: You misunderstood my view. What I emphasized was that life comes from God, and that the Tree of Life was a means for God to teach us of our dependence upon Him. I never said that the Tree of Life was an object lesson for the post-sin provision made by Christ on the cross, and don't see that this would make any sense, since the tree of life existed before sin came about.

NJK:Fair enough, I perhaps did misunderstand your view. However your clarification that: “the Tree of Life was a means for God to teach us of our dependence upon Him” confirms and further heightens my observation of substantive vacuousness.

Again, and this is not a rhetorical question: How was man to live forever before sin? By “learned dependence” osmosis??? You, uniquely in this thread, blindly and unbiblically refuse to see any ‘life-perpetuating “supernatural power” in the Fruit of Life’.

Tom: I don't believe this is the case. If you think otherwise, please quote something I've written to support your idea here.


(1) In regards to your view on the Tree of Life and man’s life in this thread: Both APL and Mountain Man have stated that it is what perpetuates life as stated in the Bible and SOP (e.g., Gen 3:22-24 & PP 60.3). I don’t know what kland’s view is on this.

(2) The reason why “osmosis” is my only remaining logical option for your view is because you state that man lives eternally by the death of Christ, however you do not explain/point out how mortal man is supposed to live eternally. You further do not take into any substantive consideration what the Bible and SOP say about the physical contribution of the Tree of Life, including in Heaven for the redeemed. Your claim that ‘it is only to a lesson of dependence upon God is outrightly without any Bible or SOP support. It is entirely borne out of your view.

If the Redeemed are to receive bodies that could live eternally then (a) that makes them have immortality tangibly contained in themselves, but the Bible is clear that only God has immortality; (b) why were Adam and Eve never said in the Bible or SOP to have such immortal bodies.

That is why is can only see osmosis as the only logical option left to explain how God can make mortal created beings live for ever.

Quote:
NJK Even Jesus does not endorse your view (e.g., Rev 2:7 and many other SOP statements confirm this fact.)

Tom: What you're suggesting is my view isn't my view.


It, substantively speaking, actually is the only option left.

Quote:
NJK: Do we need the Tree of life in Heaven to supposedly continue to learn dependence on God???

Tom: It's obvious that God doesn't need the Tree of Life to give us life, isn't it? Assuming you agree this is the case,...


For the reasons stated throughout this thread and summarized in the response above, I unequivocally, certainly do not believe this as it is contrary to what the Bible and the SOP plainly say. Where are you seeing that ‘this is obvious’??

Originally Posted By: Tom
.... then God must have deliberately chosen to have us eat of the Tree of Life in order to live, just as He has chosen to have us breathe in order to have life.


Again, the premise for that statement is Biblically unfounded, nonetheless, continual breathing is indispensable to remaining alive, so I don’t see what your logic/point is here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So why did God choose to have us eat of the Tree of Life when He didn't have to? Clearly, to my mind, it is because there are spiritual lessons that He wants us to learn by so doing.


That is a circular reasoning based upon a Biblical and scientific fallacy. Therefore it does not begin to be true/valid. So faced with such a choice of the Bible&SOP vs. your unfounded and unscientific rationalization, I can, and will, only choose the Bible and SOP.

Quote:
T:The real important point I was bring out, which is where the whole Tree of Life discussion began, is that there is an organic relationship between sin and death, and between faith and life. You denied this, using the Tree of Life as an argument against this idea.

NJK:Indeed I did, and still do, because the Bible and SOP are clear that sinners can live forever (Gen 3:22-24; PP 60.3). Your rationalizations trying to disprove these Biblical facts are mere human reasonings. Indeed, and especially in our day when the many lessons of sin have been learned, if sinners today had access to the Tree of Life, they of all generation would be able to live forever as they would like, as most seek to do now, and given many advances in knowledge, science and technologies, would staunchly live by at least the last 6 commandments and ignore the first 4.

Tom: I think you have to ignore a lot of teaching in both Scripture and the SOP to hold to this view. Both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy teach that there is an organic relationship between sin and death. The number of statements in both far surpass the statements regarding the tree of life.

Consider Scripture, for example. There is one statement regarding the tree of life. There are many direct statements regarding the relationship between sin and death, as well as many stories and parables which illustrate the theme, such as "The soul that sins shall die," "The wages of sin is death," "Sin, when it is finished, brings forth death," "The sting of death is sin."


The only SOP statement you provided for this view of yours is DA 764.1. We have already discussed this and I do not see that an organic relationship is being taught, but a statement that sin, when allowed to full develop, is deserving of death. The Bible verses that you have cited have all been answered before in this post. So you’ll need to provide other supposed support your claim from the many that you say there are. If these are your most clear cut/prominent than I suspect that the rest are similarly mere proof-text and, substantively-speaking, unsupportable conjecture.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If what you are asserting were true, that any organic relationship between sin and death should be rejected, then somewhere in Scripture some Bible writer should have tempered what he wrote in regards to the relationship between sin and death with a mention of the tree. But the tree is never mentioned in this context, not even once.


First of all you’ll first need to provide other texts to support your view as stated above, secondly Bible writers understood that what needed to be focused on was the return to Paradise which would automatically restore access to intermediary Tree. So that is what they did. In the Old Covenant they focused on the typifying Sanctuary Service, in the New Covenant on the anti-type Jesus Christ, Our Lamb and High Priest. Jesus merges the way between mortal Man and an Immortal God so that this eternal Life can be possible, physically conveyed/transmitted through the Tree to be ingested by the Redeemed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If we consider the Spirit of Prophecy, we have the specific statement that "the inevitable result of sin is death." It is not possible to articulate the principle any more clearly than this, and, indeed, in the context this statement is made, she repeats over and over again that death (the second death) comes upon the wicked as a result of the choices they have made. She writes that had God left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished. And then, had He done so, onlookers would not have understood that the inevitable result of sin is death.


In the full context of that DA chapter, as explained throughout this thread, I understand it as ‘sin is shown to be deserving of death. That is what needed to be clearly demonstrated and understood.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There is absolutely no connection to the tree of life here. We have the clearly stated principle that "the inevitable result of sin is death" in a context which cannot have any dependency upon the tree of life (since it's dealing with Satan).


Again I don’t contextually see this understanding and, furthermore, that death, even the second death, if sin has not naturally done so by reaching a “critical mass” stage, distinctly for both First and Second Death, has had to, and will have to be, actively achieved by God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The idea of Scripture, and the SOP, is the following:

1.We have all been bitten by the serpent (i.e., we have all sinned) and, because of such, need divine healing.
2.That healing comes by Jesus Christ (by believing in Him).
3.If we don't avail ourselves of the healing that Jesus Christ brings, we will die because of our sin.


I agree with these, however I further see the also present concrete, Biblical realities in these to be:

1. We indeed have all chosen to sin and since Adam and Eve’s first sin, the possibility for a sinner to live forever has been removed.
2.Jesus provides all of the necessary Legal/Spiritual requirements for man to be purged of all traces of sin and live forever again.
3.When we accept that gift in faith, we allow God to take the necessary concrete measures to make this full restoration a reality again, just like it had been at the begin of His Creation on this Planet prior to the Fall.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I believe the Tree of Life is incidental. It's not necessary to form an accurate and complete theology. It's nice that God has provided this detail for us, but if He hadn't, it wouldn't make any difference, as I perceive things.


Defaulty giving the benefit of any doubt to God, I go by the foundational theological tenet that nothing that God does is void of any substantive meaning or without any tangible and concrete necessity. To me, the Tree of Life is the easiest way to see this, as it serves as the mean through which an immortal God can dispense the necessary “supernatural powers” to mortal creation and man so that they can perpetually live. Living a quality life is however distinct of that physical reality and depends and the Spiritual choices of man, as God knew and stated that a sinner can live forever by eating of that Fruit.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, if He had simply said that in the new earth people would live forever because of their faith/obedience, that wouldn't materially change anything.


As I stated previously in this thread, I believe that we have been created to the best design of God for a mortal (intelligent, free-willed) being. Indeed it would be reckless of God to invest in free-willed with abilities that could do great damage should they rebel. These extra abilities are temporarily given as the need/mission is (e.g., Samson’s strength). As I said and defended before, angels need to be tangibly outfitted with wings so that they can fly own their own to fulfill their “occupation” as God’s messengers to all created worlds throughout His Universe, among other functions.

Originally Posted By: Tom
On the other hand, it appears that the Tree of Life forms the cornerstone of your theology. The cornerstone of mine is supported by literally thousands of statements. The cornerstone of yours is supported by something like two or three.


You need to cite at least another 3 from your supposed “thousands of statements” because the ones you cited did not exegetically check out. I see many more statements in the Bible and SOP on the Tree of Life than just three, and these in various presentations of its use and function. Furthermore, and according to proper hermeneutics, these are found in a context of God’s perfect plan and a sinless world. SO they indeed do have a Theological prominence and are foundational to how we are to understand how Man was always meant to live. As I said, Jesus came to fully restore that Perfect Plan of God.
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#132675 - 04/14/11 11:41 AM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Quote:
Tom: My original thought upon reading this verse was the intended meaning is "the violent seek (or "attempt") to take it by force," that is, that the word "seek" is implied. I don't know if this is a viable idea or not.

NJK: Where the notion of “‘similar mental bias’ here??

Tom: You wrote this:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
From a semi exhaustive exegetical study that I have done on this verse, but succinctly summarized here:

-the Greek word “biazomai” translated here as “violent’ actually refers to “(mental) bias” thus it refers to one who acts with a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue situation; influence in an unfair way; or going across the grain.
It speaks of forcefully acting with a mindset and not pointedly to the physicality involved. It involves changing a bias mindset.


Tom: What's the difference you're seeing here between what I said and what you said?


Everything!!! Again: “Where the notion of “‘similar mental bias’ here??”
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#132676 - 04/14/11 01:34 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom]
Mountain Man Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2015

20000+ Member
Registered: 10/25/00
Posts: 22078
Loc: Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Ellen made it clear we cannot grasp, understand, comprehend everything Jesus revealed about the character and kingdom of God. She wrote:

Quote:
The Word of God, like the character of its divine Author, presents mysteries that can never be fully comprehended by finite beings. {FLB 14.2}

And to all eternity men may be ever searching, ever learning, and yet they can never exhaust the treasures of His wisdom, His goodness, and His power. {FLB 14.3}

Christ will lead the redeemed ones beside the river of life, and will open to them that which while on this earth they could not understand. {FLB 14.6}

In the light that shines from the throne, mysteries will disappear, and the soul will be filled with astonishment at the simplicity of the things that were never before comprehended. {FLB 14.7}

How dark seem the dispensations of Providence! What necessity there is for implicit faith and trust in God's moral government! {6BC 1091.6}

That which the mind cannot now grasp, which is hard to be understood, will be explained. We shall see order in that which has seemed unexplainable; wisdom in everything withheld; goodness and gracious mercy in everything imparted. . . Controversies will be forever ended, and all difficulties will be solved. {6BC 1091.8}

T: Even in a sinless state, we would be incapable of knowing all there is to know about God. But that's not the point. The point is that everything that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Christ. The righteous will spend eternity plummeting the depths of what Jesus Christ revealed (not to mention, having the privilege of His continuing to reveal those same things throughout eternity).

M: You said, “The point is that everything that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Christ.” Do you realize that’s not what your favorite quote says? Here’s what it literally says – “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” Jesus Himself said, “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: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.”

T: This doesn't contradict what Ellen White wrote. Even though there were things Jesus Christ did not say to the disciples, it does not follow that He didn't reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God. I can't think of why you would think that this would follow. There's no logical dependency here. This should be easy to see. All that needs to be the case for Ellen White's statement to be true, and Jesus' as well, is that the things which Jesus refrained from telling the disciples were referring to aspects of God's character which Jesus Christ had revealed (or would reveal) elsewhere. And indeed, in regards to the context of the statement, what Jesus Christ could not reveal to the disciples by words, which they could not bear, *was* revealed to them by Christ when He died on the cross.

“All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” “Can know” refers to our limited ability to comprehend truth. Therefore, Jesus only revealed what we “need to know” to appreciate the love of God, experience rebirth, and inherit eternal life. Fortunately for us, by the grace of God, we “can know,” that is, we are capable of comprehending, what we “need to know.” Nevertheless, engrained prejudices, preconceived opinions, widespread misconceptions, and time and circumstances did not permit Jesus to explain and/or demonstrate everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God. The idea that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God and that we are just too dense and dimwitted to discern it contradicts what Jesus Himself said. More on this point at the end of this post.

Quote:
M: If you agree the quotes above make it clear we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God, do you also agree we are incapable of knowing everything there is to know about "his strange act"?

T: I'm sure we can learn more about it.

M: When the Bible describes God causing death and destruction, why doesn’t it plainly say, in the immediate context, “God caused the death and destruction herein described by withdrawing His protection and giving His enemies permission to do it”? For example, when fire flashed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive, why doesn’t it plainly say, in the immediate context, “God withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to kill them”?

T: Truth is progressive.

Where in the Bible does it progress to the point it says, in the immediate context – “The death and destruction herein described was caused by Jesus withdrawing His protection and giving His enemies permission to do it”? I realize Ellen says so concerning specific situations, which you believe must be applied to every situation, but where in the Bible is it plainly stated in the immediate context?

Also, how early in the biblical record did God articulate the withdraw-permit principle of punishment? The reason I’m asking is to understand why, if He explained it in the beginning, and the chosen people were already aware of it, why didn’t He remind them of it whenever circumstances forced Him to do it?

Surely it would have helped them avoid adding insult to injury by concluding God, rather than Satan, was directly responsible for causing death and destruction. Isn’t that what a loving, merciful, compassionate Lord and Savior would do? Why run the risk of being misunderstood when simply reminding them of the truth could prevent it?

Of course, if Jesus didn't say anything about it (the withdraw-permit principle of punishment) until much later on, then it stands to reason they had no idea early on God wasn't directly responsible for causing death and destruction. But then who can blame them for getting it wrong if God never explained it to them? They simply took God at His word when He told them He was going to cause death and destruction.

Quote:
M: By the way, if this is indeed what happened, did God give His enemies access to the most holy place? And, where did they obtain the fire they used to burn N&A alive?

T: This question doesn't make sense to me.

Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. In order for His enemies to do it, they would have had to been inside the most holy place when they employed fire to burn N&A alive. Well, come to think of it, I suppose it’s possible they could have figured out a way to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place without having to be physically inside the most holy place. Also, what kind of fire did God’s enemies use?

Quote:
M: While we’re at it, who were His enemies?

T: Those who hate God are God's enemies (but God is still their friend).

I’m sorry it wasn’t clear I was referring specifically to the enemies of God who you say caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

Quote:
M: Why do you think saying we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God is the same thing as saying - "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son"?

T: Because these are different things. Don't you see that? I can explain it if you wish, but I think if you think it through, you should be able to see that these are different things.

M: I agree. They are different. But, as you can see, the question above was aimed at determining why you think otherwise. It’s obvious now, though, that you agree with me.

T: No, I disagree. You're original question wasn't well stated, and I misread it. Here's what you asked: “Why do you think saying we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God is the same thing as saying – ‘All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son?’” This isn't something I think because it's obviously false. That these are different things should be obvious to you, and it should be obvious to you that I wouldn't think these are the same. This is what I should have said. You're the one who was making the apparent argument that because we don't know everything about God in our sinful state the idea that all that we need to know of God or can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ must be false. I certainly never expressed this idea. You should be careful that you don't ask some question which has an assumed premise, and then, when the question is answered, pawn the assumed premise off on the one responding, as if that person had the original idea, rather than yourself. This isn't fair, and you have a tendency to do this, so I suggest being careful to guard against this.

I’m sorry you misread the question. Please know that it was an honest question. At any rate, I’m glad we agree “we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God” and “all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son" do not mean the same thing.

Quote:
M: Ellen wrote:

Quote:
Christ said to his disciples, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” [John 16:12.] As the result of their early education, their ideas upon many points were incorrect, and they were not then prepared to understand and receive some things which he would otherwise have taught them. {GW92 301.1}

On one occasion Christ told His disciples, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." Their limited comprehension put a restraint on Him. He could not open to them the truths He longed to unfold; for while their hearts were closed to them, His unfolding of these truths would be labor lost. {1SM 109.1}

Jesus saw that they did not lay hold of the real meaning of His words. He compassionately promised that the Holy Spirit should recall these sayings to their minds. And He had left unsaid many things that could not be comprehended by the disciples. These also would be opened to them by the Spirit. {DA 670.3}

M: She plainly says Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. You seem to disagree.

T: No, she said the opposite. Of course I disagree, because your assertion is blatantly false. First of all, nowhere in the quotes you provided did she say, "Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh." This is simply misstating what she said! Secondly, she actually did say, "All that man needs to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." You disagree with this, which is fine, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't give you the right to assert that *she* disagreed with what she said!

Perhaps you overlooked the following: “He could not open to them the truths He longed to unfold. . . He had left unsaid many things that could not be comprehended by the disciples.” “He compassionately promised that the Holy Spirit” would introduce and explain the things Jesus did not, could not, reveal to them. As explained above, Jesus could only share with them truths they were capable of comprehending, truths they “needed to know” to experience rebirth.

Obviously this means Jesus did not, could not reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. This is not to say, however, Jesus hasn’t revealed everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God. When we take the Bible as a whole, rather than excluding the OT and NT, that is, rather than restricting our view of God to the four Gospels, we find that Jesus does indeed reveal everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.
Top
#132677 - 04/14/11 02:08 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project]
Tom Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 14795
Loc: Lawrence, Kansas
NJK, it sounds like you're saying it's OK to disregard Ellen White's statements as long as she doesn't preface it by "I was shown." If she does preface it by "I was shown," then it has greater weight, and should not be disregarded.

I'm not clear if a "I was shown" statement can be contrary to Scripture, and thus be disregarded as well, (but not as readily as a statement not prefaced by "I was shown), or if shouldn't be disregarded at all.
_________________________
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." 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.
Top
#132678 - 04/14/11 02:48 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom]
Tom Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 14795
Loc: Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
In this case, No, as the “Greater Light of the Bible” unequivocally states otherwise and the two views are not reconcilable.


This is just your opinion. There are many scholars who agree with what Ellen White wrote.

I've seen "strengthen" given as a suggested translation, so that the idea is that God gave Pharaoh strength to do that which was already in his heart to do.
_________________________
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." 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.
Top
#132679 - 04/14/11 03:09 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom]
Tom Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 14795
Loc: Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
Everything!!! Again: “Where the notion of “‘similar mental bias’ here??”



Those who would take the Kingdom of heaven by violence have it, it being this: "It speaks of forcefully acting with a mindset and not pointedly to the physicality involved. It involves changing a bias mindset."
_________________________
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." 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.
Top
#132680 - 04/14/11 04:05 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project]
kland Offline
SDA
Active Member 2017

4500+ Member
Registered: 10/28/08
Posts: 4970
Loc: Midland
Originally Posted By: NJK
kland: Do you see why I can understand why the Inquisition, and Hitler, was allowed (the people permitted rather than rebelled) to happen and will happen in the future?

NJK: Simply said: “No”.
Looks like you confirmed I was correct on your views, but maybe I'm wrong about the Inquisition.

OK, I'll listen. Could you explain why you think the Inquisition came about with God fearing people approving of it? While a few may have participated knowing it was not "just" or correct or right, the way something so large, so encompassing could come about is if the majority of the people believed in it. And they didn't believe they were going against God, but believed they were following God. What or how was it they viewed God as? Did their view of God, their view of His character color their acceptance of such acts?
Top
Page 72 of 105 < 1 2 ... 70 71 72 73 74 ... 104 105 >

Moderator:  asygo, dedication, Green Cochoa 
Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
(Not Refreshing Immediately)
Seven Trumpets & 3rd Angel's Message
by dedication
10/17/17 11:31 PM
A new Global Economic Restructure in 2012
by ProdigalOne
10/16/17 01:46 AM
Fourth Quarter 2017 The Book of Romans
by dedication
10/16/17 01:15 AM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by dedication
10/14/17 11:55 PM
Foods Inflamation & Cancer
by Josh M
10/13/17 01:58 PM
Fires, fires and more fires
by Josh M
10/13/17 11:41 AM
Extreme Weather: Typhoons/Hurricanes/
Cyclones, and Tornadoes

by kland
10/02/17 05:13 PM
Global Warming Farce
by kland
10/02/17 05:11 PM
Third Quarter 2017 The Gospel in Galatians
by Daryl
10/01/17 10:25 PM
Protestants renounce Protestantism
by dedication
10/01/17 01:38 AM
What Does The Bible Tell Us About The Investigative Judgment?
by dedication
09/30/17 08:10 PM
Pope's Sunday Law Agenda
by Daryl
09/29/17 09:58 PM
Catholics and Protestants Agree
by Daryl
09/29/17 09:46 PM
Three functions of the Law
by Daryl
09/29/17 09:42 PM
The Gospel According To John
by dedication
09/22/17 04:08 AM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
2017 Fall Annual Council
by APL
Yesterday at 10:56 AM
Tim Roosenberg & Daniel 11 & 12
by APL
10/11/17 12:11 AM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter

Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com
WELCOME!
� 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.


"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!

Website Ranking